BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the 9/11 conspiracy

Since I'm playing devil's advocate, debunking will be very useful to me here. However, since you would like me to start, I'll go ahead with a thesis. I do have evidence to prove my point, and I'd like to point out that it doesn't do you well to assume your opponent will automatically make an illogical argument. I would like to make clear that I do not claim to know the reason behind the United States 9/11 conspiracy. I only claim that there is an effort to hide the truth, as the evidence does not add up to the conclusion that we would like to come to. I will first be addressing the multiple failsafes that had been bypassed (including the warnings of an impending attack that were received), the inaction of a normally effective NORAD, and the incongruencies of ATC recordings regarding the flights involved. I will go on later to show the strange behavior of the buildings affected by the crash (however, I will not be putting too much emphasis on this) and show how various high-level officials had indications of an impending attack, while federal agencies blocked external investigations and redacted important relevant documents. Before you proceed with your rebuttals, I would like to hear your main argument as well.
Israel vs Palestine

The Jewish people were not "established in the Holy Land for thousands of years" as you claim. In the year 132CE the Jewish people revolted against their rulers in Rome. The war, led by Simon bar Kochba, lasted three years and resulted in the Jewish Diaspora. "Following the battle of Bethar, there were a few small skirmishes in the Judean Desert Caves, but the war was essentially over and Judean independence was lost. The Romans plowed Jerusalem with a yoke of oxen. Jews were sold into slavery and many were transported to Egypt. Judean settlements were not rebuilt. Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were forbidden to live there. They were permitted to enter only on the 9th of Av to mourn their losses in the revolt. Hadrian changed the country’s name from Judea to Syria Palestina." [1] The myths found in the Torah/Bible is nice, but it has no bearing on history.However, if we follow your logic, than white Americans must ALL return to England, black Americans to Nigeria, Mexicans back to Spain, the non-Gallic French back to Germany, and the descandants of the Canaanites back to Israel, for they were established long before the Hebrew invaded as toldin the Book of Joshua. I'm not really sure about what calling Palestine southern Syria means for anything, other than that the region called Israel should belong to Syria.My evidence that the existence of Israel is causing a surge in Wahhabism and Salafism is demonstrated by ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the overall hostility such groups show towards Western countries based on their support for Israel. "...if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there." -Usama bin Laden.[2] you asked me for evidence, now I ask you, substantiate your claims with sources.As for your final argument, that Jews built the Israeli state, it is still not evidenced at al. All you point out is that Jews lived there, under the government of Ottomans. This is simply people living somewhere, not building a State.The ancient Jewish state ceased to exist after Pompey the Great conquered them.[3] The nation was scattered by Vespasian in 135, as said above. This is the end of the Jews' claim to the region. Taking your claim of 1870, that's more than a millenium. History changed things.Sources1) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...2) https://en.wikipedia.org...3) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...
Israel vs Palestine

The establishment of Israel was little more than an emotionally charged political reaction to the Holocaust. It took absolutely no account of the Palestinians who were already in the region; Palestinians who had been granted statehood as payment for helping to defeat the Ottomans in the First World War. The establishment of Israel has only served to rally Sunni Arabs around the Wahhabi or Salafist banners. It has granted reason for Nations like Iran and Egypt to militarize and set themselves in opposition to the West. The American policy with regards to Israel has brought on more problems, such as the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent rise of ISIS. To exist as an organic Nation one has to be established from within, not from without. Thus Israel can only be considered to be an artificial Nation. It's standing as a democratic republic comes at the expense of those already there. This would be acceptable if the Israelis had moved there and set up on their own; but they did not. Instead Israel is little more than a puppet state for the West which has embroiled its allies into more wars than is worth.
Israel vs Palestine

I support israel because they are the only democratic country in the middle east that supports democratic values. Palestine does not support democratic and on top of that, Israel is dealing with enemies from all sides that want to see their country destroyed. Israel has dealt with rocket attacks coming from Gaza, and Hamas terrorists inciting Palestinians to stab innocent Israelis, and tells their own civilians on national TV to go where Israelis fire rockets so they can be used as human shields. Israel on the other hand goes above and beyond to protect Israelis and even Palestinian civilians unlike their own government, which is why I'm supporting Israel.
Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

My opponent has, once again, ignored all my evidence and examples on animal cruelty. I am not saying that Anthropocentrism relates to animal cruelty, but using that fact that we, as the leaders of the world, should put animals' values above our own, which, shown by my video, evidently isn't happening. 1) he has not countered my support for the cruelty of the dodo bird. 2) He has not supported any ofhis already rebutted points, which I must proceed to state once again he has completely ignored my points and has proceeded to state that he won.
Late term abortion is morally correct in every situation

I'm not sure what happened to my opponent. Perhaps he had private issues to deal with at home, or something happened to his internet. Whatever it was, it lead to a lackluster argument being used in his last round - how depressing. How is it lackluster? Not only does it ignore my main argument, he actually copy pastes the vast majority of his argument from the following website: . http://www.manlyrash.com... It was quite easy to suspect and find that he copypasted his argument. Not only did his writing style change, and that his argument completely ignored my own point, but he actually didn't change one bit of it. By Googling the first line of his argument, "Most people understand that a frog never becomes an elephant", I was able to find the website on the first search. Now I won't ignore his argument, I assure you that I will refute it after this lengthy introduction. However, I just want to point out the intellectual dishonesty of my what my opponent has done. Even if we were to presume that he had more pressing matters at home, he could've at least cited the website he stole from. But I speak too much. Let's get on with the awesome philosophical rebuttals: =================== Is a fetus a human being? =================== My opponent, or more accurately the website he stole from, uses a quirky argument rooted in biology. He claims that because a fetus is biologically similar, if not identical, to a human being, then killing a fetus is like murdering a human being. This is unequivocaly WRONG, and I'm dissapointed to see that my main argument against this was ignored. Sure, a fetus may have the DNA of a human. In fact, in the latter stages it starts to look like a human. However, there is still a main difference between a fetus and a human - brain development. In no stage of a pregnacy does a fetus' brain have the capacity that humans have. It can't introspect, nor can it have rudimentary emotions and abstract thinking. As I argued in my previous argument, if a fetus does not have the mental requirements to be a person - defined philosophically as a rational, sapient entity - then it is not murder and therefore not immoral to kill a fetus. ==================== Conclusion ==================== Really, my opponent has given nothing new in his last round. I was expecting for him to develop on the importance of instrospection and such, but it seems his response was anticlimatic of sorts. Since he has yet to refute my main argument, the vote is clear.
Late term abortion is morally correct in every situation

Human Being- "consisting of members of the family Hominidae" My opponent has consented in his last speech that if I prove a fetus to be a human being, then my claims are legitimate. Therefore, I only need to prove this in order to win. Please read on for my justification. Most people understand that a frog never becomes an elephant. A frog is a frog. Then again, a tadpole is a tadpole. But is a tadpole a frog? Some folks would argue not: The tadpole has no lungs; it has gills. It has no legs; it has a tail. It looks and acts just like a fish. It canï¿½€™t be a frog, can it? Well, it depends upon how you define the frog organism. May we identify an organism as a frog purely on the basis of its morphology (physical form)? The biologist will say no. Three criteria are necessary for biological identification and morphology is only one of them. Physiology and genomics are the other two. The biologist will not hesitate to affirm that the tadpole is, indeed, a frog. The living organism we call ï¿½€œfrogï¿½€ï¿½ (Rana catabiensis) undergoes profound morphological and physiological changes in the course of its lifecycle. Although these changes are radical, the genetic code - the DNA blueprint that defines this particular organism - never changes. The biologist will tell you that a frog is a frog from the instant it first functions as an independent organism, regardless of the form it takes during the course of its development. It will be nothing other than a frog when it dies. An organism is never identified purely on the basis of its morphological or physiological state at any given point in its lifecycle. It would be like declaring the benchmark of life for the butterfly organism is the presence of wings and antennae and then, after examining the caterpillar, pronouncing that, because it has neither wings nor antennae, it is neither living nor a butterfly, despite the fact that it is a living organism with the genome of the butterfly and, if it is not killed before it completes its metamorphosis, will become nothing other than a butterfly. The same thing applies to the unborn. He may not have a face. Or limbs. Or a developed brain. Or any features of a born human being.He is still a human being, biologically speaking. Having proven a fetus to be a human being, I have won this debate. Unless my opponent can successfully refute this argument, then he has consented that the ballot goes to the negative. I now conclude my portion of the debate. Thank you.
Late term abortion is morally correct in every situation

Alright, lets get started. I am not sure about this sly trick of yours, but it should be fun nonetheless. "Untrue. We BOTH have the burden of proof (of sorts). Not only, but since you are the instigator, in this debate then it could said that you have an even heavier burden. The positions of PRO or CON are arbitrary if a resolution can be worded differently. I know you love to do this trick, but it doesn't work." Ah, but you are wrong. The burden is on you to prove that abortion is correct in EVERY situation. If the negative can provide but one situation in which it is not, then I have won. I must only negate your options. My opponent's only argument thus far is that a fetus has no rights. I disagree. If you kill a pregnant woman, you are charged with two murders. Can you murder something/someone that has no rights? No, it would not be considered murder if he/she/it had no rights. Obviously in this scenario, the fetus posses the right to life, for which the criminal will be punished for having infringed upon that right. We have been referring to the being by an incorrect term. It is not a fetus but a human being. When the heart starts beating, life begins, and the baby is viable. So we now have a living human, and aborting it is killing it. Abortion stops a beating heart, plain and simple. If you abort a baby in the late stages of pregnancy, you are killing it. It had a beating heart, functioning brain, skeletal, respiratory, digestive, and other bodily systems. Aborting it stops all of these. Because it causes the heart to stop, it is killing. Killing is certainly NOT morally correct, thus the resolution is negated. I await your response. http://civilliberty.about.com... http://www.apologeticspress.org...
Late term abortion is morally correct in every situation

I will allow my opponent to speak first. {endquote} Untrue. We BOTH have the burden of proof (of sorts). Not only, but since you are the instigator, in this debate then it could said that you have an even heavier burden. The positions of PRO or CON are arbitrary if a resolution can be worded differently. I know you love to do this trick, but it doesn't work. ==================== Fetuses' don't have rights ==================== Because a fetus is not self-aware, it does not have rights. Simple as that - it's brain is not fully developed to meet such a criteria. With no rights, there is no such thing as "murdering" it. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I will develop my argument when my opponent responds.
Late term abortion is morally correct in every situation

I stand in firm negation of the resolution. As my opponent is affirmative, the burden of proof lies on him/her. I will allow my opponent to speak first. To clarify the debate I offer the following definitions: Late term abortion-Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy, done in the late stages of pregnancy. Moral-of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. If you accept this debate, you agree to use these definitions. Good luck to whoever accepts!
It would be better if the Ottoman Empire still ruled the Middle East.

ottoman's fight with different european countries on request of other european countries. ottoman's role in different european war was that of a professional killer or of marcenary. today there are many muslim countries that play the role of professional killer or of marcenary. there is no difference if ottomans survive or not because there are many muslim govt. today in middle east that could be a professional killer or of marcenary in fighting terrorism. therefore ottomans are not needed at all.
It would be better if the Ottoman Empire still ruled the Middle East.

"ottoman empire was never an ally to the west" My opponent's statement could not had been more wrong and idiotic. He just gives some small examples of wars between Europe and the Ottomans when in truth no country can be allied with everyone. The fact is that right up until the end the Ottomans were allied with various nations and a perfect example is that the Ottomans were at war with Austria-Hungary in the 16th Century yet it fought with them in World War 1. The Netherlands had allied with the Ottomans and fought together against the Portugese in that very war Con mentioned in the 1570s with Spain. In 1494 the Pope, yes the Pope, asked the Ottoman Empire for help against France and the Ottomans did respond. Then in the 1530s Francis I of France and his allies opened relations with the Ottomans and they worked together against the Austrians and the Holy Roman Empire. The Sultan opened relations with the French king and they traded together. In fact, Francis I admitted that if it was not for the Ottoman Empire the Holy Roman Empire would conquer all of Europe as well as the Austrians. And yet the Ottoman Empire allied with the Austrians in World War 1. Portugal and Spain were just bad omens with the Ottoman Empire. . http://en.wikipedia.org... On a further note I have already stated that relations between Turkey today and Europe ARE improving because of Turkey's possible acceptance into the E. U. which would possibly bring economic wealth to the E. U. and chances are the same possibilies would occur with the even larger Ottoman Empire.
It would be better if the Ottoman Empire still ruled the Middle East.

ottoman empire was never an ally to the west.The Portuguese discovery of the Cape of Good Hope in 1488 initiated a series of Ottoman-Portuguese naval wars in the Indian Ocean throughout the 16th century.In southern Europe, a coalition of Catholic powers, led by Philip II of Spain, formed an alliance to challenge Ottoman naval strength in the Mediterranean Sea.see ottoman wars in europe here:http://en.wikipedia.org...if ottoman empire's relation with west is that bad how could it be any good to west till date?
It would be better if the Ottoman Empire still ruled the Middle East.

First off my opponent has not answered any of my arguments. My opponent said: "ottoman empire cannot control islamic terrorism. besides ottomans are themselves muslim. how they could be out of islamic terrorism ?" He has concentrated this on a war of religion, but as I have proven through sources, the Ottoman Empire was open to religion. Because the Ottoman government is open to religion there would be not as much trouble as there is with the several Middle Eastern nations today. Also, I mentioned that the Ottoman Empire HAS dealt with Islamic terrorism. The coups to control the empire were all from other Muslims and they were terrorizing the Ottoman Government and the people in the empire that supported the government. Now some people in the empire maybe so emotional and protest the government for its open religion policy but the government would try to stop that. May I still remind you that even before World War 1 the Ottoman Empire was close to European powers. The Ottoman Empire had traded with the Europeans and was allied with several European powers for years and its only real European enemies were some of the Balkan States and Russia. "ottomans might help west in ww1 but that was a battle of chrisian vs christian. war on terror is a battle of christian vs. muslim. here ottomans cannot help." I have already stated that they can. First off, Islamic terrorists saw the US as big and powerful, but the Ottoman Empire was a big and powerful too and many people prospered undered it. So maybe people who are radical Muslims today would be less likely to be ones in a world where the great Ottoman Empire exists. Maybe if the empire would still be around there would be no 9/11. Not saying that this is guaranteed, but it sure could happen. Now my opponent has no real rebuttal to the Ottoman role in World War 1, but that it was Christain vs. Christain as if religion played such a significant role in World War 1 which religion did not. Also, if the Ottoman Empire was in World War 1 it was not Christain vs. Christain. "if ottomans still ruled middle east the west will have an unified enemy much more powerfull than divided middle east. thank god ottomans did not rule middle east." Wrong, it would be a unified ally.
It would be better if the Ottoman Empire still ruled the Middle East.

ottoman empire cannot control islamic terrorism. besides ottomans are themselves muslim. how they could be out of islamic terrorism ? ottomans might help west in ww1 but that was a battle of chrisian vs christian. war on terror is a battle of christian vs. muslim. here ottomans cannot help. if ottomans still ruled middle east the west will have an unified enemy much more powerfull than divided middle east. thank god ottomans did not rule middle east.
It would be better if the Ottoman Empire still ruled the Middle East.

Now this is a topic I am interested in for a debate. Before I start let me give some information on the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire (1299-1924) was an empire that largely controlled the Middle East and even more at its height including the Barbary Coast, the Balkans, and the Black Sea. The empire unified the the Middle East until its permanent damage from fighting with the Central Powers in World War 1 and years later it would fall in 1924 due to a revolution. Today the relics of the Ottoman Empire are in Turkey where it was first established in Istanbul (back then called Constantinople) and was ruled by a monarch knows as a Sultan. I believe that in terms of issues in the Middle East today the world would benefit more if the Ottoman Empire still ruled the Middle East. Specifically at its pre-World War 1 borders seen here: http://euroheritage.net... Round 1 is just for introduction.
Who is the Greatest Batman Villian

Before I get into my argument I will clarify some questions that my opponent brought fourth in their acceptance. First, my opponent seemed to question what I meant about my statement the "greatest villain." This is up to the person's interpretation, it could be the best, strongest, most iconic, or the baddest of the bad, it is all about proving why your villain is the best or just better than my own. The reason why you are in the con slot is because I have to choose between pro or con you can just ignore it. After doing some research, reading origin stories, and watching some Nolan movies I have come to the conclusion that Batman's greatest villain is Bane. I will be using Bane from the comics and from Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, not the Bane from Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin because if I did, Schumacher would be my choice for greatest Batman villain. There are two main reasons why I choose Bane, first he is one of the only villains that can compete with Batman on a physical and mental level ,and second he was able to do more in less time than any other villain.First, Bane can compete with Batman on a mental and physical level. He was able to steal Gotham away from Batman for 5 months in the movie The Dark Knight Rises were he established his own government and was the "liberator" for the Gotham people. He was also able to trap Batman in The Dark Knight Rises were he showed off his physical capabilities. He didn't just beat Batman he broke Batman.This leads me to my second point that Bane was able to do more in less time than any other villain. While the Joker has been around since 1940, Bane was only recently added to Batman's Rogue Gallery in 1993. In his first appearance, let me say that again in his first appearance was able to do what no other villain before him was able to do. Break him. Bane was able to break Batman's back and put him in a wheelchair until he learned to walk again. While Joker can't say that he only has dreamed of beating Batman while Bane did it in his first try.Bane is one of the toughest and newest villains to Batman and has done some of the biggest damage. Sourceshttp://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.comicvine.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...