BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The presidency of barack obama

ConclusionGiven the argument I have already made and taking the refutations into consideration, I believe my opponent must concede - I repeat, must concede - that the presidency of Barack Obama is actually beneficial. No politician - or person, for that matter - is perfect. Everybody makes mistakes. However, Obama is one of the view politicians that can actually recognize his mistakes and remedy the damage. Economically, the Obama presidency is excellent, taking the Republican opposition into consideration.
The presidency of barack obama

RebuttalsMy opponent has not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims. That is rather unfortunate. However, I will still refute the arguments he has made. "Yes, unemployment stood at a very high rate and went even higher when Obama took office."I already explained this in my previous argument. "Presidents always face opposition from the other party because that was how our founding fathers designed the country to run."The Founding Fathers, actually, designed this nation to be without parties. "The reason why Obama did not keep all of his promises is because he only said them to get elected."There isn't sufficient evidence provided here. "I am not yet sure if I support his plan because I have not yet had time to really dig thru it."Are you serious? "But if Americans really wanted change they would have voted for Ron Paul."Please, just please.
The presidency of barack obama

Yes, unemployment stood at a very high rate and went even higher when Obama took office. During Obamas first year as president the unemployment hit 10 percent. Presidents always face opposition from the other party because that was how our founding fathers designed the country to run. If a president never faced opposition then it would turn into a one party system for the 4 years that he has been president. Free market healthcare would greatly benefit even more Americans. He should have implemented a system where competition drives prices down not the government. The reason why Obama did not keep all of his promises is because he only said them to get elected. Same reason why bush got elected because he promised to have a non interventionist foreign policy but instead he had us in 2 wars 3 years into his first term. Now one war was a war we needed to fight but Iraq was not our fight. The reason we went to Iraq was for oil. Despite popular belief Obama did not end the Iraq war. The Iraq war was ended by George W Bush. At the end of Bushes second term a deal known as the "status of forces agreement" was reached between Iraqi and US officials which cites that US forces would be out of Iraqi cities by June 30th 2009 and all US forces would leave Iraq by December 31st 2011. But even republicans don't know that bush ended the Iraq war because they always blame Obama for Al Qaeda taking Iraqi cities under their control. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://reason.com... I'm not going to argue against him passing wall street and credit card reform because that is part of what he actually did right. His renewable energy investments have largely failed. Most of the businesses he invested the money into are out of business now. http://blog.heritage.org... I agree with parts of obamacare. I agree that people should not be able to be denied converage for pre existing conditions. Republicans haven't proposed any alternatives to obamacare until today. Bobby Jindal proposed an alternative to obamacare. I am not yet sure if I support his plan because I have not yet had time to really dig thru it. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Obamacare is not working well because people are being kicked off their plans because they dont cover what obama wants covered. People should be able to choose what they want covered based on their needs. I don't think 80 year old men need maternity care covered in their healthcare plan. Yes, Obama did save the auto industry but now that the auto industry is back Chrysler is now owned by Fiat. I do believe overall the auto industry bailouts were a success. But if Americans really wanted change they would have voted for Ron Paul.
The presidency of barack obama

Acceptance & Debate Introduction I gladly accept the challenge. I will argue that Obama has had an extraordinarily marvelous presidency, taken into consideration the Republican opposition he faces. My opponent has not stated any rules and therefore I believe it is my duty to state them. I hope my opponent agrees with the implementation of these rules. First, sources will be cited using the MLA format. Secondly, there will be no forfeiting or conceding. Thirdly, proper spelling and grammar will be used. Finally, I believe that there should be proper conduct and no insulting language. I look forward to this debate and hope my opponent's argument is rational.
Structural racism and inequalities in America were the root causes for the Black Panther Party.

The Pro side has made the claim that the Black Panther Party's root causes were structural racism and inequality in America. As the Con side I will dispute this claim. First, I will assume the Pro side is referring to the most famous Black Panther Party founded by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton. The original name was the Black Panther Party for Self Defense. The Black Panther Party for Self Defense was not original in title or some of their tactics. Bobby Seale has told several lies about how him and Newton some how created the idea by thinking of a panther being back into a corner. Then a panther leaps out to attack in defense. This is revisionist history. No, they stole the Black Panther logo from the Lowndes County Freedom Party[1]. The Lowndes County Freedom Party was founded in 1965 with the intention of registering "Negroes" to vote. Negroes had represented about 9/10 of Lowndes County but an overwhelming majority of the "Negroes" were prevented from voting. The Lowndes County Freedom Party was trying to fight voter repression. That is how the Black Panther logo became popular. The Black Panther Party for Self Defense was founded as a result of the Lowdnes County Freedom Party. Why do I say this? Because in 1966, several dozen Black Panther Parties erected across the country. In California, there were three Black Panther Parties. There was the Black Panther Party of Northern California, the Black Panther Party of Southern California, and the Black Panther Part for Self Defense. The first two are forgotten along with the other Black Panther Parties across the country because the third became the most popular and revered. In some cases, they absorbed these rival Black Panther Parties. I will argue the root cause of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense was the Lowndes County Freedom Party. The Black Panther Party for Self Defense was not original in its' concept but rather the offspring of another organization's popularity. Primary Sources: Ready For the Revolution-Kwame Ture The Huey Newton Reader-Newton(Edited by David Hilliard) Secondary Sources: Waiting 'Til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America-Penial Joseph [1] http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org...
Structural racism and inequalities in America were the root causes for the Black Panther Party.

Thanks for hosting this debate. I accept your challenge. The burden of proof is on the pro side to show that the root causes for the creation of the Black Panther Party was structural racism and inequalities in America. I as the Con side only need to refute Pro's points. I ask Pro to clarify which Black Panther Party is being referred to in this debate. I assume the Black Panther Party for Self Defense founded by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale.
Gay marriage should not be legal in the United States

One thing I would like to say before we start, is that I am not homofobic, and would not like to be called homofobic. I will start out with the fact that homosexuality offends many religions. A list of religions that are against homosexuality are as follows: American Baptist Many forms of Christianity The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Islam Orthodox Judaism (Source- . http://www.politifact.com...-/) Though all of these religions may not be huge in America, there are still few religions that support homosexuality. A main argument that I'm sure many people have heard is, "It isn't hurting anyone, so why do you care? " Though physically, people are not hurt, but emotionally, and spiritually, people are hurt. It is similar to cyber bullying, (I am not saying gay people bully straight people! ) in the way that the victims are not physically abused, but emotionally. You cannot have gay marraige without destoying religion itself, is my point. Next, I will be trying to argue that homosexuality IS a choice. To try and say that homosexuality is genetic is ridiculous. It is like saying that I will be a fireman when I grow up! I am attracted to women, not because my genes MADE me, but because I want to like women. What about bisexuals, too? Did they choose to like both genders or is that genetic? Also, what about gay people that at one point liked women, but then somewhere throughout there lives decided to like women, or vise versa? Did their genes change halfway through there lives? Lastly, I will be going over marraige. Marraige is not just a word, but a religious term that represents the untiy of a man and a women, not two men. Homosexuals should be abl to be united by law, just not by marraige. They have the same right as we have, to marry the opposing gender, so they are not being treated like second class citizens, as my opponent may try to say. once again, marraige and sacred and to allow gays to get married changes it's meaning.
Gay marriage should not be legal in the United States

I would like to debate against someone who provides more than, "They can do what they want, it doesn't hurt anybody". I want to debate against someone who knows specific reasons why gay marriage should be legal. During this debate, I will bring up my main points in round 2 and rebuttal in round 3. My main point will be as followed. -It offends almost ALL religions -It is a choice -Gays can be united by law, but not something as sacred as marriage. IT IS MORE THAN JUST A WORD! Good luck to my opponent and I wish to have a good, well constructed debate. Thank You.
Which is Better iOS App Installer - TweakBox or Emus4u

Emus4U App [ https://emus4udownload. Org ] is one of those apps that are very easy to use and which can bring in front a wide range of unique, Impressive features. The best thing about it is that you can easily download free paid apps and tweaked games from a huge selection of hundred apps and that on its own is an exciting part. At the same time, You have a very good download speed for anything that you download, Which is always a huge plus to have here.
Jill Stein would make a better president than Bernie Sanders

Let us consider the Green Platform's Chapter III-D (Transportation) [1]:Support for cyclists and pedestrians increases cardio activity and cuts at heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. The efficiency of transit cuts the demand and price of fuel, ergo consumer prices for shipped goods. Reduced auto subsidies raise new vehicles to their proper market-defined prices, raising demand for mechanics (whose jobs cannot be shipped overseas) to increase the lifespan of existing vehicles. Drawing risky drivers onto public transit makes roads roomier and safer for good drivers, and allows passengers to read, socialize, think, work, and devote their mental energies to non-driving activities.Sanders would generally raise and reinvest revenue, but Stein would assess resources beyond the human construct of currency, guided by an empathetic, populist, and practical platform of 40+ sections besides transportation. 1. http://www.gp.org...;
Jill Stein would make a better president than Bernie Sanders

Hoarded wealth *currency.* It’s easy to imagine that a broken machine simply needs to be refueled, but our health system is already stumbling over its own size, which is how we spend more per-capita to live shorter lives than other developed nations. Inflating it with more money does nothing to clear the congestion of preventable diseases that clog the lines to the doctor’s office. Heart disease and diabetes need to be addressed by subsidizing positive dietary and exercise behaviors for the lower and working classes, which are currently victims of conditions that render positive decisions more expensive. Wealth inequality, health, and resources are interconnected. Sanders is strongly motivated to solve them, but passion does not solve a puzzle. The Green platform spells out a multi-faceted approach to making complementary improvements in each category, which is why a Stein agenda can solve problems more effectively than a Sanders one.
Jill Stein would make a better president than Bernie Sanders

This "hoarded" wealth you speak of. he wants to tax it then use that money to fund things like national healthcare. that isn't re instituting it into society, because it is not within the publics hands. although your point is great and I wish more people understood that. Bernie also wants to change the tract where new income goes to by increasing the minimum, thereby, instead of taking form one and giving to another as your propose, he simply wants to change the channels it takes, thereby changing who receives the income.
Jill Stein would make a better president than Bernie Sanders

A basic premise of the concept of "persuasion" is that a subjective metric is still a metric. Therefore if not for subjectivity, why have debates? I will not define "good president" any further.Sanders paints economics as a great well of wealth from which to draw water, and distributed to the rest of the community. Currency, however, is not resource. Hoarded wealth is out of circulation, and re-integrating it into society does little more than would printing more money. Providing more cash with which to purchase groceries does not increase our natural capacity to produce and distribute groceries.The Green platform - of which Stein is a generic representative - seeks to invest more heavily in transportation, education, and climate response, through which our economy’s total capacity is heightened.I await my opposition’s response.
Jill Stein would make a better president than Bernie Sanders

I accept your challenge. I would like to note, that "better" is subjective. Better as her ideals are "better" or that she will get more of the ideals done. (i.e. would she be a better unilateral leader or a president). are we taking for the discussion that those ideals you mentioned are good or are they debatable? Are they at least debate for the extent that she will be a better president "While that is good, that amount is not good" I look forward to this debate.
Jill Stein would make a better president than Bernie Sanders

I believe Jill Stein would make a better president than Bernie Sanders, by - using more economically productive methods for wealth reallocation, - addressing human rights more expansively throughout the globe, and - taking stronger, more efficient measures to curb and adjust to climate change.This broad topic need not be limited to these bullets, I am simply providing ground on which we can begin.If you do not meet the debate's requirements, I am happy to override them after you demonstrate in the comments section that you can take the topic seriously.My thanks in advance,~ Brant M.
Jill Stein would make a better president than Bernie Sanders

I will accept another expanded debate/rounds/characters. law school papers/internships, have kept me busy. I think you misunderstand Bernie's platform, though he incorrectly used the term democratic socialist, that is not what is platform is. Let us begin by stating probably around 50% of the two platforms are identical. break up big banks etc. However, although Jill Stein is brilliant, she hasn't put out nearly the planes Bernie has, leading me to believe he would make a better president. What is her tax policy? How will she pay for medicare for all? In her medicare for all, everything is covered, including abortions for any reason. that is one example of something that is ordinarily not covered in medicare for all making it vastly more expansive than other countries. Students have accumulated trillions of dollars of student debt, that they have willingly acquired. How will she pay to have this debt taken care of, and why? why not car/home loan debt? Jill Stein needs more detail.
Jill Stein would make a better president than Bernie Sanders

I've mostly advocated for the Green platform, which I linked to in the previous round. But I'm happy to link to Stein's platform[1].This in mind, it seems ironic that con's rebuttal should be a reference to crony capitalism. The need for reigning in crony capitalism is a starting premise for all Greens. My choice of Greens over (socialist) Democrats is that they economically ground themselves according to resources, rather than regarding currency as the resource.I appreciate con accepting this debate. I recommend the forfeiture ignored by our audience, because I believe time constraints should have a weekly option, to encourage participation for debaters who work more than 40 hours a week. It's a busy economy with no rest for the wicked until we close our eyes for good. This topic deserves more time, characters, rounds, and debates. My thanks again,~ Brant M.1. http://www.jill2016.com...
Jill Stein would make a better president than Bernie Sanders

I apologize for forfeiting the previous round. (i also apologize for grammer, I am currently listening to Gary Johnson vs. Jill stein debate from 2012 on RT) Actually one of the reasons we spend more per-capita to live is from crony capitalism. From the money in politics that for example, in medicare the government is not allowed to negotiate for lower drug prices (which is ridiculous). that's one reason it costs so much, and because with a socialist healthcare system the doctors are limited in what they can and can't give you. For example, if you go to the hospital for a broken toe, often the Dr. will say well it might be infected, take these antibiotics, lets also run this exam etc. etc. This is what causes prices to skyrocket. Jill Stein instead want's every single health issue covered, this would cost way more with basically a blank check. Doctor's would prescribe even more. Similarly how college charge more because students have un limited loans. please link to her platforms.
Bestiality should be illegal in all cases in the United States

The arguments presented are flawed due to illogical assumptions about both the mental state of animals and their perceived sententious. 1). The Consent of Animals Isn't A Valid Argument Animals' consent is a shoddy as proved by existent U.S. law. In the U.S. statutory rape laws vary from state to state, but their general consensus is that a 12 to 14 year old may not have sexual intercourse with someone 3 to 4 years their senior. My opponent may argue that a person may engage in intercourse with an animal that falls into said age requirements, but that potential rebuttal may be rendered inaccurate by the two following facts. The Sally-Anne test is used to determine the point at which a child has developed a theory of mind. Almost 100% of children (not impaired mentally) over the age of four pass the test proving they posses a theory of mind. A signing chimpanzee (widely considered to be the most intelligent animal) has never passed the test. As, they are proved to lack what the average four year old does not, can we really say that an animal is really at a point of maturity, where they can consent to sex with a human? If my opponent denies the previous argument by saying that statutory rape laws are determined by age of sexual maturity alone I present the following argument. There are over 2 million species of animals on this planet and it would be impossible to create laws around each of those animal's sexual maturities. 2). Sex With Unconsenting Animals Isn't Morally Permissible My opponent has chosen to make this section of debate about the morality of animal rape and I will respond in such a style. Though in the last section I demonstrated that animals lack a theory of mind it does not justify their being mistreated. My opponent argues that as animals can be legally murdered and imprisoned animal cruelty is ethical. I say that the law is in this case blatantly unethical and shouldn't be viewed as an ethical authority. I ask the voters, is it ethical to cause an animal pain just because they aren't sentient, and should we mistreat animals for no reason other than it being legal to do so? 3). Bestiality Laws Can and Should Be Enforced My opponent says that the government must constitutionally stay out of people's bedrooms. She does not realize that the government already interferes with it's citizen's sex lives by illegalizing pedophilia, gay marriage (in most states), and even in 14 states sodomy. Blue steel should know this as she herself has publicly stated anti-gay beliefs (big issues of her profile). Her hypocrisy reveals her ignorance in this field of debate, and her points shouldn't be seen as being valid.
Traditional Marriage (Man/Woman) and Same-Sex unions are not Equal. Convince me otherwise.

Happy to think with you today, Your argument is that due to the fact that male+female partnerships can lead to children in and of themselves, That means the state should favor them over other partnerships. My arguments against this contention will be as follows: 1. Not all male+female relationships will, Or even CAN lead to children. Some m+f couples do not want kids. Some are too old. Some were born or became sterile any number of ways. Any privileges m+f pairs get that m+m. F+f pairs or otherwise do not are meaningless if it is all on the basis of children. 2. Mm or ff pairs can still have kids. Ff partners can have kids via sperm donation. Mm pairs can currently get a surrogate mother to bear their children. Either pairs can adopt. There is no shortage of orphans in the US alone. 3. Marriage is by no means "for" children. One could argue that in the past or in some societies it implies children, But marriage is about celebrating the union of two partners. Nowhere in wedding ceremonies is the intention of having children outlined. 4. Few societies are hurting terribly for people. Birthrates lower than the replacement rate have only occurred in recent history when civilizations advance past a certain point. Immigration can be used to offset the difference. If and when immigration and birthrates cannot, The state can put other programs into place to ensure the stability of its state. Marriage has nothing more to do with children in today's society, Even before the legitimization of gay marriages. At best there is a vague implication. Child tax credits, Public education, And assisted healthcare/foodstamps are more along the lines of programs targetted specifically for those with children. These are my basic arguments against your outlined position. Happy to debate you on any of these points in more detail. Happy to think with you today, -Thoht.