BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
War Cannot Be Prevented

My opponent provided several definitions of war however to help keep confusion to a minimum I wouldn like for us to agree on one definiton of war and stick to that one. I believe this is the best definition and ask that when my opponent refers to war he uses this definition. War: a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. By this definition a playful competition between friends would not be defined as a war. Now as my opponent is instigator of this debate, he will have the burden of proof. It will be his responsibility to show that war cannot be prevented and my responsibility to refute his arguments. I will attempt to show my opponent's arguments and then move on to refute them. "How people could have thought of causing such a battle that would kill humans is unknown, though frequent "battles" between people are found every day. Whether it is playfully or in hatred, wars, no matter how small, are seen as normal." Here my opponent basically says that war goes on a lot. I will not contest this however I do not share my opponent's conclusion that because war is common, it can never be prevented. At one point, belief that the earth was flat was common and if you asked someone at that time if the perception of it would ever change they would probably disagree. I believe that with the rise of modern science, one day war will be a preventable phenomenon. Science will allow humans to do more with their limited resources and one day hopefully humans will not be addicted to oil. Science can end wars over limited natural resources. "War is natural towards all creatures to either find resources, solve a conflict, etc." While war may be a natural response by people who cannot think of any better option to get what they want, humans have evolved beyond this. As I stated above, through the use of science we can one day end the need to fight over resources and hopefully end most forms of conflict with that. I look forward to my opponent's response.
War Cannot Be Prevented

War: -a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. -a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other. -a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812. -active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words. -a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty. -armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... War, as seen above, has no real definition by words. But it is known commonly as a violent, bloody battle between two sides. How people could have thought of causing such a battle that would kill humans is unknown, though frequent "battles" between people are found every day. Whether it is playfully or in hatred, wars, no matter how small, are seen as normal. These are all still acts of hostility towards someone. Animals seen in the wild are seen as doing the same. War is natural towards all creatures to either find resources, solve a conflict, etc. Yet the ultimate goal for the human race is to obtain world peace. World peace can never be accomplished due to the human race, because the world shall never be in peace. This is the beginning of my argument of seeing as wars cannot be prevented.
Local, State, and Federal Governments should not tax tabacco products.

Thank you for participating in this debate. Opponent: There is no legitimate reason why tobacco should be completely exempt from the taxation that is levied on all other goods and services. I take it that you are referring to sales tax. Well, tobacco products are actually taxed twice. They are taxed once for sales tax and then again for tobacco tax. The problem doesn't fall with sales tax because sales tax is a proportionate tax; in my home state it is 7% on every item. So, it depends on what you buy how much sales tax you pay. On the other hand, tobacco tax is not a proportional tax. In my home town, every pack of cigarettes has a $1.90 charge on every pack, regardless of that pack's cost. So, tobacco tax and sales tax are not comparable. Opponent: Tobacco currently brings in sums of money to federal, state, and local governments. You sound very socialistic. So we should tax EVERYTHING since every tax is somehow helping the government out. Opponent: The loss of this revenue would be harmful to future budgets. Okay. Well, if the government had less money: maybe they'd quit spending money they already don't have and not spend our children's future? Opponent: Another reason a government should tax tobacco is to promote public health. Tobacco has been shown to have exceptionally harmful side effects to the smoker's health (lung cancer, &ct.). McDonald's is bad for people's health (fatty foods, grease, etc.), Cars are bad for people's health (millions of Americans die each year in automobile related accidents), going out at night is bad for people's health (more crime happens after sundown), exercising is bad for people's health (people who exercise get hurt more). Should we tax all these things? I think that you would agree the answer is no. So, why is it fair to single out a single demographic (smokers) for one thing, when hundreds of other things can have negative health effects, like exercising. Opponent: This type of action taken by the government is not oppressive because it does not attempt to compel or otherwise force citizens to quit smoking. Or is it putting a burden on lower income families? Most smokers are in the bottom three tax brackets. So, how is taxing them for something that is addictive fair? Why shouldn't we just tax the corporations that produce tobacco products? Because corporations don't pay taxes, they pass those taxes onto citizens.
Local, State, and Federal Governments should not tax tabacco products.

====== There are at least two motives for government officials to implement a tax on tobacco - fiscal and health. The fiscal consideration is by far the more important of the two, although I am not utterly opposed to government attempts to influence citizens to live more healthy lives. Below I will outline the argument for each reason. If I can prove that just one of these is a sufficient reason to warrant a tax on tobacco then I have won this debate. My opponent's burden is to demonstrate why neither of these is a valid reason to tax tobacco products. It further falls on Pro's shoulders to demonstrate why tobacco should be exempt from taxation. ====== REVENUE The reason why a government should tax tobacco is simple - revenue. There is no legitimate reason why tobacco should be completely exempt from the taxation that is levied on all other goods and services. Tobacco currently brings in sums of money to federal, state, and local governments. The loss of this revenue would be harmful to future budgets. HEALTH This concern is specifically tailored to an increase in tobacco taxation. The negation of this point in no way refutes the value of a low or moderate taxation. Another reason a government should tax tobacco is to promote public health. Tobacco has been shown to have exceptionally harmful side effects to the smoker's health (lung cancer, &ct. ). Additionally, heavy taxes on any item have a tendency to discourage use (. http://www.usatoday.com...). Therefore, we can conclude that heavy taxation of tobacco should result in a general reduction in the population of smokers. This type of action taken by the government is not oppressive because it does not attempt to compel or otherwise force citizens to quit smoking. Instead, it discourages use by making it a more expensive habit. ======= CONCLUSION Because local, state, and federal governments (and thus, the people) stand to benefit from the revenue generated by taxes levied on tobacco; or because public health stands to benefit from a general decline in the population of smokers, the resolution, that (local, state, and federal) government should not tax tobacco products, is negated.
Gay Marriage

Please forgive my delay in answering, there has been a lot going on for me right now. So, you have yet to explain why you believe gay marriage is wrong. What does it harm you? Ok, Answer me a couple questions... 1. What does it hurt you if there is gay marriage? 2. Why doesn't everyone deserve to have this right? 3. You say to not make this like race, but in many ways it is. Isn't not wanting homosexual people to marry another form of discrimination? 4. Why should someone not have the same rights as you just because they're a little different than you? I invite you to answer these questions to help me understand where you're coming from. You haven't made a single argument, you've just babbled on about how you believe you have more of a right than somebody else to get married.
Gay Marriage

1. What does it hurt you if there is gay marriage? I am a very religous person. I believe that gays have the right to be what they want and do what they want, I am in favor of that, they do have rights but they just shouldnt get married. Marriage is under the bible and being gay is a sin. And don't you think it is wrong? A man and a women was meant to be. God created it that way. 2. Why doesn't everyone deserve to have this right? Everyone?Everyone isn't gay. 3. You say to not make this like race, but in many ways it is. Isn't not? This is not discrimination. I am perfectly ok with them being gay and whatever they do on their free time but they should not get married. I prefer if they didn't show what they are in public but thats not right. I will admit. 4. Why should someone not have the same rights as you just because they're a little different than you? We were all born the same. We all just ended up differently. And the right to gay marriage should not be legalize in which I was born right. I love women and women only. They are a little different but isn't everyone different in a way?
Black People and Indian People are Useless

https://www.reddit.com... Also, here are some stats: Well yes. Black people have indeed caused a lot of trouble for society. Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world. Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider: 1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison. Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law. Many violence in public schools, especially in downtown and big metropolises, are inflicted by black students. Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people. If we completely segregate neighborhoods and cities into black people and non-black people, it is downright racist and cruel towards black people. The only way to prevent black violence from occurring, or at least to minimize it as much as we can, is to have and enforce a strict limit of one black/African family per neighborhood. Please think carefully about it: once there is already one black family in every neighborhood, what can we do with the remaining black families? We cannot put them in ghettos, because that would be very racist and reverting back to the 1950s and 1960s. Nor can we kill them because that is simply immoral. (I mean, isn't that what Hitler would do?) Instead, the best solution is to throw them in prison, and then let them out of prison once there is a neighborhood with no black family living in it. Furthermore, if we put black families to prison, we will put them under control. (I think we must segregate prisons by race too.) No offense and not at all being racist, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of sunlight white people can harvest. And beyond that, throwing them in prison is a solution to overpopulation, because the world will be less crowded. You see what I am saying here? Now you might be thinking that it's racist and cruel, but it's not. Just read on. No, I am not being racist. It's true. How would you like to be assaulted by black people or a gang. You said that you are not a black person. Non-black people are vulnerable targets to black people. Since no people want to be assaulted by black people, but we cannot totally segregate the world based on race or skin color, the best way to combat black violence is to limit each neighborhood to one black family. If we throw remaining black families in prison, we are also combating overpopulation so they won't be crowding up the Earth. Now I want to here a convincing argument from you.
Do Tornadoes really exist

I am not talking about the alleged 1999 tornado, I was talking about the 2012 tornado. After reading all of your comments on how all tornado pics were fakes, I believe you either insane or are really stupid. 1 of your images is a pic of a freaking Guinea pig. If you look at the 1999 tornado outbreak, you would see that the damage costed roughly over 4 billion dollars in U.S. money. Another thing, when looking at the pictures how can you tell they are fake? 1 more thing, go to WWW.Weather.com and take a look at the tornado pics.
Do Tornadoes really exist

Thank you for accepting the challenge of this debate. First and foremost, the alleged 1999 Oklahoma Tornado was in fact a government cover-up as the damage and death toll was inconceivable by any natural disaster. I would post links but the websites are unusually being censored and the uploaders mysteriously vanishing. Fake image of a Tornado: http://fc09.deviantart.net... Here is a link to an image of alleged "Tornado Damage" http://media.mlive.com... In the image in the above link, it is obvious that the damage was just put there by people. This is my first rebuttal, I will now await my opponent's response.
Do Tornadoes really exist

I believe that tornado's do exist. For someone to say that these violent storms do not exist is extremely stupid when we have the facts right in front of us. What happened to Oklahoma City in 2012, was that the result of a tornado or something else? Further more, why would you doubt that these violent wind storms exist when we have the proof right in front of our noses? Good luck in this debate, it's going to take a lot of evidence to prove that tornado's don't exist.
Aaron Hernandes should be exonerated

defense: 1. I did not say that he was innocent or guilty, all what I have said is that there is not enough evidence for a conviction. 2. He does not have any sources, nor does he have any evidence, therefore you cannot vote for him. Extend my offense Offense: 1. All the evidence is circumstantial: 2. Nobody saw who fired the gun, it could have bee anybody that was with Hernandes it might actually have been Hernandes. 3. Hernandes may have deleted the film to protect his friends, that does not make him a murderer 4. The Nissan Altima and the bullets in the car do not indicate that Hernandes is the killer they simply illustrate that own of the people with Hernandes is the killer, this would make him an accomplice to murder, and not an actual murder. 5. The text message between Lyod and his sister does not mean that Hernandez shot him, it just means that he may have witnessed the killing. 6. Without an eye witness account, a ballistics match, or DNA analysis Hernandes should not be convicted, because there is no proof that he did it, there is just evidence that he was with the person that did, or that he knew the person that did.
Aaron Hernandes should be exonerated

Defense: 1. I did not say that he was innocent or guilty, all what I have said is that there is not enough evidence for a conviction. Offense: 1. All the evidence is circumstantial: 2. Nobody saw who fired the gun, it could have bee anybody that was with Hernandes it might actually have been Hernandes. 3. Hernandes may have deleted the film to protect his friends, that does not make him a murderer 4. The Nissan Altima and the bullets in the car do not indicate that Hernandes is the killer they simply illustrate that own of the people with Hernandes is the killer, this would make him an accomplice to murder, and not an actual murder. 5. The text message between Lyod and his sister does not mean that Hernandez shot him, it just means that he may have witnessed the killing. 6. Without an eye witness account, a ballistics match, or DNA analysis Hernandes should not be convicted, because there is no proof that he did it, there is just evidence that he was with the person that did, or that he knew the person that did.
Aaron Hernandes should be exonerated

Seriously? You deserve a slap for even asking such a question. Hernandez had it all. Money, fame everything and threw it all away by just shooting some innocent guy in Boston. Sure celebrities are known for doind stupid stuff but killing someone is out. I think that he deserves every single minute of a sentence and learns his lesson. If he gets out, what's it gonna teach him? I got lucky? Try telling that to O.J Simpson
Trump made his money through bankruptcy

Trump uses the chapter laws as stated: Chapter 7: stops all operations and liquidate company's assets. Chapter 11: reorganize a company. Chapter 13: Plan to repay debt. He will continue to make more money from bankruptcy thanks to these laws and as his reputation of a presidential candidate and a billionaire. Regardless if he loses the money he gets from his father, 40 million, he'll still be a billionaire. Trump has good credit, but his organization has bad credit. Explain to me why he'll lose a few billions if he lose 40 million?
Trump made his money through bankruptcy

When Trump was older than a teenager, he asked for a "small sum of a million dollar" from his dad. Of course, his dad being the dad gave his son a million dollars to start his business. But, Trump failed and bankrupted. Until he received the inheritance from his dad to start his business, but bankrupted three times. He liquefied the results of bankruptcy into his pocket money. Banks still loan him money because the reputation of a billionaire is very hard to sully.
WIIL INDIA BE ABLE TO HOST BTHE OLYMPICS LIKE THE CHINESE

Well... For everyone here, I'd like to state at the onset of the debate itself that I am not a crystalgazer who will look into my crystal ball and tell with exact precision that India will never hold the Olympics.. I believe my Opponent is wise enough not to devolve this debate to a level of semantics.. I merely argue the statement that India is not likely to hold the Olympics ever.. and present my points towards establishing it.. Firstly, there is we must understand a great disparity between India and the developed countries today.. this disparity if we notice has just increased in the past few years and will continue to increase in the years to come.. India is progressing no doubt but the net effect is certainly not comparable to the more advanced countries because of the extensive increase in our mid-year population each year too.. {which places a lot of burden on our resources}.. Secndly, some may argue that China has the largest growing population but still hosts the Olympics this year.. Well we need to analyse this situation.. China as a country differs from India in its manpower which at times overtakes even the most advanced machine power of the industrialized countries.. at times though only.. I believe that the Olympic Committee would not ever be satisfied enough to find enough reasons to go ahead with the Olympics in India.. That was my brief hopefully good enough view point.. I'd like to end with a quote by Lewis Carroll- "Now that I come to think of it, Do we even decide questions? We decide the answers ofcourse, but certainly questions decide us.. For u know its the dog that wags the tail and not the tail that wags the dog.." Seeya..
WIIL INDIA BE ABLE TO HOST BTHE OLYMPICS LIKE THE CHINESE

YES!!!definately india would be able to host the plypics like the chinese as the developement of india towards a superpower is not far enough and after becoming a super power we wuold take all steps to ensure that the olympisc which is going to be held in new delhi.Will definately be betterthan the one in beijing.i have full faith in my mother hood country and truly believe that we will have mucch much better equipment tha our neighbuors CHINA!!!!!!!!!as i am confident of abetter performance tha our arch rivals china.COMMON INDIA YOU CAN DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Williams V Walker-Thomas Furniture Co

Again, my point is overlooked completely. You might as well be a Pikachu with all this evasion. Again I'll reiterate. The interest on the item in Williams' case already had brought in enough revenue to cover the original cost of the item. If this is the case, the business (Walker-Thomas Furniture Co) would just be gouging the funds from Williams. Their money had already been made back and was safely within their bank accounts again. The court cannot dictate what their contracts can include, but it can protect the consumer from price gouging and fraud. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co had already made their money back for all of the original items through interest, so repossessing the items would just be theft at that point. Taking back things from a customer thats already paid for is not only unethical, its also a crime which is punishable by the jurisdiction of the law. So again what you're saying is not exactly making sense. Again, my original problem is not with the contract in its entirety, its the fact that the clause allows for the Walker-Thomas Furniture Co to exceed their insurance amount (meaning that they can take more than what the item actually costs and would have been sold for).
Williams V Walker-Thomas Furniture Co

You say that the company"s intention was to knowingly rip off Williams with knowledge of her financial situation. However, based off past successful dealings with Williams, it naturally would make sense for payments to continue to come in. Furthermore, Walker Thomas Furniture has an obligation to prevent and account for loss. Whether or not these interest rates are high is not necessarily an important point; the interest rates are high because of the guaranteed depreciation of value of goods that are rented. Walker Thomas must take into account the potential for loss, and it is the buyers discretion to abide and accept the contractual terms. It is not under legal court jurisdiction to dictate business practice, especially when contracts are entered knowingly.