BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Vladimir Putin a bad leader for Russia

"The path towards a free society has not been simple. There are tragic and glorious pages in our history." - Vladimir Putin My worthy opponent and my audience, the motion for the debate is "Vladir Putin is a bad leader for Russia". I am the speaker of the negative team and I believe that this statement is false.According to the Oxford Dictionary,"leader" is defined as a person who rules, guides, or inspires others.. I will be talking to you about the major factors that are important in defying him as a good leader such as the important decisions , the life experience,the voice of the folks and e.t.c. . 1.He is a strong, consistent leader of an emerging superpower. He is leading his emerging capitalistic nation into a superpower. He is doing it despite the poor infrastructure handed to him by a communist state. He is dealing with the evils of radical Islam without entirely alienating them. He is part of the G20 and now a leader of the group. Russia is opening is businesses to the west and allowing the west to invest in his country to improve the economy. He is rationally developing his nations military without bankrupting his economy. He has opened up freedom of religion in his nation and welcomes others to enter, worship, and flourish. Ex.1- GDP per capita has grown from $2,400 in 2000 to $12,000 last year. 2.He has proved himself as a good leader all over the world and people like him. Ex.1- Why Russia's President Is 'Putin the Great' in China? Books on Mr. Putin have been flying off shelves since the crisis in Ukraine began, far outselling those on other world leaders, sales staff say. One book, "Putin Biography: He is Born for Russia," made the list of top 10 nonfiction best sellers at the Beijing News newspaper in September. Ex.2- Overall, Russians have appeared happy with Putin. He won 53% of the vote in 2000, 73% in 2004, and his ally Medvedev won 70% in 2008.
Gay Marriage

Explain give reasons Why they Shouldn't! Humans are humans no matter what they should have the same rights! If they love each other and they want to get married they should be able to!. Why are people like you against it how does it hurt you? How does it affect you or your life? What have they done to be rejected?, besides having different sexual preferences, which is no big deal because its not like they are trying to get you to be with them, all people have to do is respect them and let them live their life how ever they want!.
Gay Marriage

Why do people discriminate against same sex couples if they are just like any other couple, discriminating against them is just like discriminating against some one because of their skin color, if people where able to get over the fact that everyone is the same no matter where they come from how come they cant just accept that some people have different sexual preferences but that doesn't make them any less. Denying same sex couples the right to get married violates the equal protection clause of the U.S Constitution. In some places Gay Marriage is already legal, in other it still is not which I do not see why not, if it does not hurt anybody if two persons want to bring their life's together because they love each other. Everybody does it they get married and nobody complains I understand that some people do not think its right because of their religious believes but god loves everybody just how they are if he was against them then he would of never brought them to this world because he is the one who created all of us. Being gay is not a crime, there are a lot of people who should be getting hated and punished etc. and people decide to punish the innocent. I just don't get it why do people act that way can some one explain??? Are You Against Gay Marriage? or Are You A Supporter Of Gay Marriage?
Gun Rights

As a summary, I would like to take note of the following: Con centered his entire argument upon the hypothetical situation of a normal man just happening to turn crazy on an arbitrary day and start shooting people. 1. My opponent failed to make valid connection between the highly unlikely case of the crazy man to the gun rights debate, thus making the situation be almost of no relation to the debate. 2. Con always stated his core support as a "say say" condition and did not state any real life example as to this condition thus regarding it as a "mythical" situation in this debate. 3. Almost all of Pro's (my) points were disregarded by Con thus conceding to each and every one of my supports.
Gun Rights

Yes I did state a crazed man with a gun, however, I did state before that he got the right licensing, so your point is invalid. Also, as a rebuttle to your second rebuttle, you stated that felons from owning a rifle, but I stated that a normal countryside person from having a rife/shotgun. Yes, and also, as a rubuttle to your support, you stated that the person must have a clean history. Say this man had a clean history but one day, he decided to kill someone. He already did, so you cannot say he did not have the right documents, when in fact, that was a first offence, and he did have a clean history. Lastly, all gunmen have to start from a clean history up until they get the proper document, then they start shooting people.
Gun Rights

I thank Con for debating with me. However, his argument has many flaws: Rebuttal 1: My opponent stated the case of a crazed man with a gun. However, Con has failed to recognize my point that anyone owning a gun must be legally licensced (Support 3). Therefore, the absurd point that a crazed man owns a gun (legally) is wrong. Rebuttal 2: Con stated having a shotgun/rifle as plausible. However, California law gives strict requirements for gun owners such as restricting felons from owning rifles. Support: The rebuttals highlight a support for my reasons in that the laws require gun owners to have a clean history (Reason 3) and use guns wisely such as to defend oneself. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...
Gun Rights

Yes, but as you stated, only wise people should own guns, correct? Let's just say someone pretended to be a wise person, got a gun under correct licensing and just shot someone, but then in court, he states that he felt threatened, and needed to protect his/herself. If the court cannot prove that he had the gun illeagly nor had not been threatened, he would just get off the hook. We really don't want a crazed gunman on the loose. You may be able to keep a small caliber pistol in your garage, but no, you shouldn't be alllowed to keep a rifle or a shotgun in your garage. And how would one know if it was used for peacemaking? How can we trust that person if we were not there? What if he was lying? We don't know this.
Gun Rights

There are 3 arguments that justify my argument: Reason 1: Constitution 2nd Amendment shows current standing of gun rights. As the wisdom of founding fathers has created a complete American nation, the wisdom of our Founding fathers in creating these amendments is proven, thus being logic behind decision of the provisioned rights. Reason 2: By allowing guns to be owned under lawful measures, the safety of people is secured because guns are used for peace-making measures such as protecting oneself. Reason 3: Legally holding guns attributes to history of one where no past illegal acts were committed that prohibiting firearm possession for a person over 18. This legal "trust" shows that gun rights are carefully decided for wise and good use.
NCAA D-1 football needs a playoff system

My coach always told me that the best ways to rule over the slaves is to beat them till they don't got no thinking's! As Napoleon said "A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." All these football players are weak and pathetic slaves who have never seen the glory or gain the honor from the battlefield, or surviving out in nature. All they do is put on tight pants and roll around in the grass while! Who needs there a waste to a society, and why should so many people waste time out of there lives to watch football on a TV. Then watch Das Super Bulls. Hast the slaves have created there own new religion based on consumerism, stereotypes on how a man should be, and promotes patriotism, school, and all other corrupt contraptions made by the capitalists on are culture AY! Football es stupid sport! THe Quarterback gets all the fame and troughs a piece of rubber, why a joke! He and and few other people are viewed, while most of the players have useless positions in the "team". In basketball and soccer, badminton, etc. Require much more participation and have overall more fun. Also most sports don't have so much rules, hiearchy, and control! Take your filthy Saxons back to SCOTLAND SLAVE~!
NCAA D-1 football needs a playoff system

Then da YES, we bags up the slaves! THey will work under das shiP and will be under water while there legs are devoured by sharks. Who';';s Filthy scottland Sack';s are we taking backs To Scottland Ay. We take the slave sacks from the irish beer driking village of duvarena where they eat roasted pig and chicken and eat beer! Ay. Who's filthy scottland sack we yere speaks Ay The little hobbit scum from the north of England's (Das briutish land) Ay!
Should Phones be allowed in School (UK)

For the first have of my opponent's arguments where he expands upon the uses of phones, extend my third argument. None of these are benefits unique to having a cell phone when the schools would have office phones which the students could just as easily use. For the latter half of my opponent's argument where he speaks of a kid's social life, it can wait. As he himself says they're only in school for 6 hours a day (I had to go for 8 in High School >->/*) so their 'social life' can wait until after those six hours. Also; they're surrounded by their peers while at school. If they want a social life at school they could always just talk to each other. Real face-to-face verbal conversation isn't out of the question, and we shouldn't assume that it is.
Should Phones be allowed in School (UK)

I thank the opposition. Phones, is it that hard to realise KIDS/TEENAGERS enjoy using their phones but for many different purposes! Maybe it could help by; if you forgot your homework, you could CALL someone to come drop it off for you. Even in sixth form, they are allowed phones, they have contact to their teachers. Maybe we need contact with our teachers! Sometimes, there is an emergency and you cannot find a certain person, phones could help with contacting them It could their lives! Educationally, why are they in the way, what do they do? During lessons what will the use of phones do? I'm talking about break... Kids are stuck in school for six hours without ANY social life, we are stopped from doing many things! Can't we just change one thing! The answer is YES, life is life, can we not keep it like that! Or should we ban electronics from school, ban friends! Ban Life is what you're trying to say! If you're voting no, I wont judge you, but all I'm trying to say is phones are needed in life, do you know hat else is? UNITY, STRENGTH, JOY. what do phones do, unite people (texting), strengthen people in confidence, joy; with friends, with others.
Should Phones be allowed in School (UK)

Argument 1: There is No Educational advantage- Postulate 1: The purpose of school is to get an education. Postulate 2: Cell Phones do not serve this purpose. Conclusion: There is not educational benefit to allowing UK students to have phones in school. Argument 2: There is an Educational disadvantage- Postulate 1: Cell phones draw attention away from the class. Postulate 2: Students must pay attention in class in order to get a good education. Conclusion: Cell phones inhibit a student's education. Argument 3: Allowing phones would provide no unique benefit Postulate 1: Accredited schools have office phones for student usage. Postulate 2: Parents may call an office phone to contact their child. Conclusion: Students do not need their cell phone at school Conclusion- The Pro has failed to provide a compelling argument to warrant a vote for them; I urge a vote for the affirmative.
Should Phones be allowed in School (UK)

Phones in the School, UK, are not allowed... Why don't we change that! Lets be free, lets show others who we are, too bad we are in school uniform, too bad we cannot chew gum, too bad we are not allowed phones... we can change it all! Change to: Phones out! Gum Chewed! No uniform! BUT... first, is the phones, what's the point of no phones, most of the week we spend in school so as children get older, they learn to socialise, texting, can we not change this! it is possible! if we are children and have a right to freedom, a right is a law and a law is a promise we keep to ourselves, keep within these lines and we will not face jail! But if we have freedom why can't we have our phones out in school?
Christianity is the religion of the ignorants and ignorance

Good points to make. I argue, That christians being ignorant does not prove it to be the religion if ignorance because based on your rules muslims are even more ignorant. I go further to say at some times atheist prove to be quite ignorant to deny themselves as part of being religion. The existence of a creator is neither proven wrong nor right. So to say not believing in a creator is not religion or tp say atheism is not a religion is ignoring the fact that atheism is a belief. It is based more logic but it still falls under faith. At least muslims and christians admit to having a faith, Atheist deny that saying a creator does not exist is in fact a faith because that statement can not be proven. Only debated. I classify as spiritual. Not under any religion but accepts the fact there could be a higher power and if so i would not in life be able to understand it.
Christianity is the religion of the ignorants and ignorance

I'll start by defining ignorance as you asked. In this argument I'll consider ignorance the lack of knowledge. First of all, I call christians ignorants because most of them (at least the ones I know) don't even know what their religion stands for and what the bible really says (machism, Homophobia, Etc) and I didn't really understan why you call it a tolerant religion, They may not or seem to not act like it but racism, Homophobia it's what they preach or at least used too because they change what they "believe" in according to their needs. Second, I call it religion of ignorance because that's what they stand for, Ingorance among their followers an they call it faith. Thay just want everyone to trust blindly in whatever they say they don't incite questions comparing to other religions like budism
Christianity is the religion of the ignorants and ignorance

I argue that in order to be the religion of ignorance, It most have the most ignorant followers. Which means Christianity is not the religion in question for 3 reasons. 1: even though it has lack of scientific or historical evidence to back up its claims, Its practices are actually of the most tolerant compared to other religions. Especially when it comes to homosexuality, Voilence, Judging and peace. Leading to #2 2: there are far more religions that are more ignorant than christians. Like the ones who believe in the old testament or mislims for example, A religion soley based on isolation from outsode influences. Respectable, But by your definition it is mpre ignorant than christianity. 3. I argue that the 2 points liared are debatable as well as your question, But can we define ignorant for the sake of your argument? Im assuming ignorant means lack of outside influence or thought. Meaning solely convinced based on faith and little to no evidence.
Superman's powers and abilities are scientifically possible.

I do not need to make further arguments. Deep down in my heart, I believe his powers are possible, but I must acknowledge the facts. Therefore, in this paricular debate, I concede. Voters, please vote for my opponent. His arguments are excellent and they cannot be denied. Even though I would love to make additional points, I will not. Debate.org is not very important. What is important for me, however, is homework, family time, etc. Therefore, I am the loser in this debate and my opponent is the victor.
Superman's powers and abilities are scientifically possible.

Although some of your point are valid, I must say your view is incorrect. Superman is an alien from the planet Krypton. Now, according to Earth science, there will be some issues regarding the possibility of these powers, but I must point out that aliens will have different technology, different DNA, and different abilities. As you know, Superman gains his powers from our yellow Sun. Superman utilizes the power of the Sun and this energy powers Superman's abilities. I do not need to cite my sources to prove this. This should be logical. Superman is an alien with powers no ordinary human can comprehen. I do not wish to brag, but I must say, I am not ordinary.Unfortunately, I had to rush this argument. I do not have much time and I have more important matters to take care of, such as homework, writing my novel, and spending time with my family. Please give me an opportunity to write a detailed argument in my next round. I assure you, it will be sophisticated.
Superman's powers and abilities are scientifically possible.

Even with powers such as flight, heat vision, and super speed, I am convinced that the powers and abilities of Superman are scientifically possible. I would now like to implement a few crucial rules:1. Each argument must contain sources and they must be correctly cited. 2. Each argument must be sophisticated and complex.3. Proper conduct and behavior is expected.4. Proper spelling and grammar will be used. I look forward to debating this topic with anyone that disagrees with my view.
In Defense of Evil part 3 of 3: Satan was the Good Guy in the bible. God was the bad guy.

This is part 3 of my Defending Evil series.In part one I defend the unabomber's actions as being just.http://www.debate.org...In part 2, I take Hitler's position. That eugenics is beneficial.http://www.debate.org...In this debate I'm arguing that Satan was the good guy in the bible and that God was the bad guy. By accepting this debate my opponent agrees to assume Jesus is not God and that things traditionally attributed to Satan are from/of Satan such as the serpent in the garden of Eden, references to Lucifer etc..No other stories outside of the bible referring to God or Satan may be used either.Nobody with less then 5 debates may accept this debate, but I will make exceptions if given good reasons.As usual if the resolution or anything else needs to be changed to make the debate more fair I will most likely do that as well.Round 1: acceptanceRound 2/3: Arguments and rebuttalsRound 4: Closung statements and rebuttals
Iraq war was justified

-Rebuttal: !1) Your notion that OPEC was implicated is possible and logical, but your source and is seriously lacking. It states that Britain took a "leading role" in the invasion, while at their peak of 46,000 soldiers on the ground, they still made up less than a third of the total invasion forces, largely led by the 150,000 American soldiers on the ground. (1) The "memos" your source claims are not clearly cited or noted. That being said, Crude Oil is the #1 most traded commodity in the world(2), and factors into nearly every market and economy across the world, especially the developed world. Much of the economic prowess in the Middle East relies on Oil to fund and stabilize their governments and nations, so destabilizing a totalitarian regime and instilling a free market system capable of more efficiently harvest and distribute their oil in theory would take the power away from the regime and allow for a more even distribution of the oil wealth. Side Note: From what I could discern, your argument is that the war wasn't justified because it was justified with claims you find immoral, OPEC interests and Neo Colonialism. You may have been better off asserting that the motivators for war were not just or moral, or that the entire event was a destructive waste of time and money, which I whole heartedly agree with. Justifications for the Iraq War: 1) Despite Hans Blix and the U. N weapons inspectors coming up largely empty handed in their search for WMD's, there is no denying that Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people during the Al-Anfal campaign (3), so there was a man in power that had no problem actually using these weapons if he was able to attain them again. This is an undeniable hazard for the region, and the Iraqis themselves. Saddam also quite obviously had aspirations to attain Nuclear weapons, (4)(5) which is clearly something that would be detrimental and destructive for the region. This is a completely legitimate justification for the war, asserting that global and regional security was in imminent danger that could have become much worse. 2) Saddam Hussein spearheaded one of the most brutal and violent regimes the world has known. His crimes are numerous,and do not need my description to be understood. (6) This regime and the countless people who were harmed by it provide another very legitimate justification for intervention. So to conclude, the Iraq War was justified at every turn, wether it be Economic interests, Regional/Global Security, or Human Rights, there are multiple legitimate justifications to the Invasion. Judgements on the morality of those justifications, the War and it's aftermath are for another debate. Your assertion that the war was not justified is completely unfounded, as I think you may have intended on debating something else. .. . (1). http://www.bbc.co.uk... (2). http://www.biggone.com... (3). http://www.hrw.org... (4). http://www.pbs.org... (5). http://www.newsmax.com... (6). http://history1900s.about.com...
Iraq war was justified

England and Denmark were definitely in it for imperialism. I suspect it being that both countries have had imperial empires, and I don't think it has ended. But that aside, CIA reports show that there were no weapons of mass destruction ( here are some sources for you -- http://www.nbcnews.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.leadingtowar.com... http://www.foreignpolicy.com...) There is evidence about OPEC being involved. It's as if even the USA, as well England & Denmark of course are reviving the imperial company concept at the expense of imperialism that was started with the East India Companies. http://www.independent.co.uk... France and Germany did the right thing to not go into war. The war on terror is good. However, Iraq hasn't attacked anyone. And the Gulf War was already 12 years before.
Resolved: The Death Penalty Should be Removed

Justification through economical, moral, political and/or legal are all legitimate, regardless of if both opponents argue differently (I may argue through legal and moral while my opponent justifies through economical and political for example). Thus both parties involved may choose what they will justify through what means. Death penalty: "Capital punishment, the death penalty, death sentence, or execution is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime." [1] Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... Round 1 my opponent states her case, she has BOP. Due to me not being able to post in round one (due to laying out conditions within debate) she may only post a 1-3 line rhetorical statement within round 4 with a goodbye of her choosing (will not count as a line against her) No semantics, or ad hominem. Goodluck!
Using the Threat of the Death Penalty to Ensure a Guilty Plea is Ok

One common argument for the continuing existence of the Death Penalty is the idea that lawyers can threaten to pursue the Death Penalty, and thus scare the defendant into pleading guilty to a life sentence (or other lesser sentence) instead. I believe that this violates the intentions of our law system, and this argument should not be considered in a Death Penalty debate. Any questions about this debate, please ask in the comments before you accept.