BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States."

My opponent has just forfeited the debate.For weeks now, he's intentionally been insulting me by calling me DoggyBag, in what he calls a "typo". Calling me "DB" continues that, although he has been repeatedly asked and ordered by officials to quit this.My opponent mocks this site, the debate culture, dishonours our mentors and has no intention of debating this seriously.See the attached picture for proof.I cannot be bothered to debate him and declare myself winner of this debate and the tournament.Others may feel free to disagree. I don't care.Because I've had it with this site not reacting to complaints about serious misbehavior of its members.Effective now, I'm leaving this site. To itself, to take care of the mockery it has made of itself by not standing by its serious users against would-be trolls.What a sad waste of time this has all been.I thank whiteflame for being a tremendous coach.I thank you more than I can say.The rest of this site: not so much.
Conspiracy theories are damaging to our society.

Although this debate is not strictly about torture in the US, I will be focusing on this because I feel as if this is a solid example to explain my thesis. The pro stated that "It is ludicrous to suggest that this torture of prisoners is conspiracy". I did a poor job explaining why this is a conspiracy theory above so allow me to do so now. First when I stated that "the tourture of prisoners by supposedly civilised governments' ...was and still is a conspiracy theory" I was focused on torture in the US during George W. Bush's presidency. It is now a well known fact that torture did take place during this time but there was a period of time in which there was not enough evidence to confirm this, so it was under the conspiracy theory category. This is very important because The United States is considered to be one of the "moral leaders of the world" and without this theory being released it is quite possible that these immoral acts may have not been exposed. So long story short, many scandals(that needed to be exposed) were once conspiracy theories. Therefore conspiracy theories do have some purpose.I would also like to address the following statement made by the pro " an FBI agent investigating a drug cartel would be ill advised to post his progress online until there is evidence there is little use in shouting conspiracy, apart from anything else if the claims are true posting vague conjecture and accusations online gives the opportunity to cover up." I strongly disagree with this statement because of how much the internet has grown over the years. If a massive scandal(even one with little or no evidence) is posted online it will attract a lot of attention which, will make it nearly impossible to cover up.As in his previous round argument the pro talks about "big conspiracy theories" being a crutch to mankind because it causes people to " ignore the flaws in our human form." when this is actually the exact opposite of what they do. Conspiracy theories(true or not) allow people to see that human nature is flawed. If not for conspiracy theories people would not believe true scandals when they are released because they would be far to unbelievable for a society that does not here things of this nature often.For these reasons I stick to my original belief that conspiracy theories are necessary.
Conspiracy theories are damaging to our society.

In this debate I will be arguing that Conspiracy theories are necessary to our society, but before doing so I will be listing two definitions that are crucial to this debate.Conspiracy-an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.[1]Theory- a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural[2] So from these definitions we can conclude that a conspiracy theory is the unproven belief that a planned treacherous act has been or will be committed. The key word here is unproven because although they are "unproven" they still can be proven true. The Pro stated above that "these theories distract from the real issues our world is facing and regardless of the veracity of these claims without evidence they serve no useful purpose." Now allow me to disprove that conspiracy theories without evidence serve no use. The Pro mentions things such as "the tourture of prisoners by supposedly civilised governments". which was and still is a conspiracy theory. In December of last year it was announced that the CIA(Central Intelligence Agency) had been torturing terrorist detainees during George W. Bush's presidency[3]. Before this news was released there were many conspiracy theories on this topic, though there was little to no evidence to prove this. It is also believed that these tortures are still taking place, but there is no evidence towards this so it is a conspiracy theory. So although there may be no evidence for many conspiracy theories it does not mean that they are purposeless or incorrect.The pro also states "These are just a few of the issues that are drowned in the effluence people spew across social media with no grounds and no sources thus distracting from real issues and therefore damaging our society." In this he is saying that conspiracy theories without sources/evidence are drowning out those that do have them. As stated earlier conspiracy theories without valid evidence can turn out to be true. Also as stated earlier a conspiracy theory is unproven, therefore if there was valid evidence for it then it would not be a conspiracy theory.So in conclusion conspiracy theories "with no grounds" are not necessarily bad and can turn out to be true. I await the pro's response.Sources[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.cnn.com...
Conspiracy theories are damaging to our society.

My premise is simple, I Believe that the prevalence of conspiracy theories expounded online and across Facebook are damaging to our society. This is because these theories distract from the real issues our world is facing and regardless of the veracity of these claims without evidence they serve no useful purpose. They dilute the efforts of people who are trying to get the word out about real atrocities committed by governments and corporations worldwide. There are some very disturbing practices that both governments corporations are involved. These are not conspiracy theories and there is an abundance of evidence but the message is lost amongst a sea of pseudoscience, inaccurate stories and wacky conspiracy story's posted by people online. Until we learn to look at the sources of these claims and stop being distracted by hypothetical stories we will not be able to fight the real mundane evils of this world. Take for example the situation in Syria here in the UK it has recently emerged we have sold "12 billion worth or weapons to various dictatorships including to Syria, these weapons have devastated these countries and been used against innocents and we have blood on our hands The U. S. profited from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s by arming both sides, resulting in a war lasting almost a decade. In 2012 Americas weapons sales totalled $86 billion. Or in the corporate world take the huge number of company's that profit of the backs of some of the poorest people in the world in order to reduce the costs of making their products at the same time avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the countries here in the west. In the UK one in four of the U. Ks top companies do not pay tax. In the U. S. This has been estimated to be as much as $200 billion in lost taxes This list is endless, I can talk about companies like Monsanto or Walmart, the tourture of prisoners by supposedly civilised governments, the genocides that go unreported by mainstream media such as the genocide in East Timor. These are just a few of the issues that are drowned in the effluence people spew across social media with no grounds and no sources thus distracting from real issues and therefore damaging our society. . http://www.projectcensored.org... www. wsj. com/articles/companies-avoid-paying-200-billion-in-tax-1435161106 www. bloomberg. com/news/articles/2015-04-14/how-10-percent-of-s-p-companies-opted-out-of-paying-u-s-taxes www. theguardian. com/money/shortcuts/2015/feb/15/london-tax-dodge-tour-visit-companies-dont-pay-dues www. dailymail. co. uk/news/article-2287216/Revealed-One-UKs-companies-pay-tax. html . http://www.independent.co.uk... . http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... . http://conflictarm.com... . http://www.commondreams.org... . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://nationalinterest.org...
Ronald Reagan was our best President ever

ConclusionThroughout this debate pro picked and choose the issues he would respond to, dropping many points along the way. This is very similar to the issue at hand regarding Ronald Reagan. The record of our 40th president is not a bed of roses with no thorns.When the right of the political spectrum looks back on the two terms of Reagan through colored glasses they do so ignoring a great amount of harm his policies had done to a good deal of Americans and the world. If you want to know who the most popular president is to the right of the political spectrum, he may very well be just that. America, however, is not made only of Republicans who wish for a modern hero to worship.Reagan’s apathy for a devastating disease cost tens of thousands of American life’s, and set back research years. Regardless of his personal feelings regarding homosexuality, this is a travesty, only highlighting that Reagan thought some Americans worth attention, and others none.Reagan’s rhetoric on military matters led to some catastrophic events for those caught in the crossfire of a war between superpowers. The economic implications still shake our foundation today. Coupled with an economic policy that has so badly bifurcated our country that we are now living a new age of robber barons.Finally, unaddressed by pro, the Reagan administration spent a good deal of time and energy helping those who would eventually become a direct threat to our country. In the most dramatic instance, doing so in direct violation of Congress illegally.Reagan has merits to hang his legacy on, there is no doubt. We have had worse presidents, but, importantly to this debate, we have had better. Thankfully.
Ronald Reagan was our best President ever

Actually, according to a 2012 Gallup poll (1), "Americans are most likely to say Ronald Reagan was the nation's greatest president -- slightly ahead of Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton." So not only in professional opinion, but also in public opinion was Reagan out nation's greatest president. As to your claims of funding terrorist organizations, any sensible president, not even Obama, would purposely fund terrorist organizations; there are two scenarios that often are behind these situations. First, the organization does not start off as a terrorist organization. As is commonly known, the Syrian rebels of today did not start off connected to Al-Qaeda. This is the case with with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. They actually did start off as simply a revolutionary group trying to overthrow the oppressive Soviets and their communism (2). The second case is that which has been exemplified numerous times throughout history. I am sure you have heard the saying 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' before. This is often the case. For example, the US support of Communist China during WW2. They gave millions of dollars in weapons and training to the Chinese, who would soon become their enemies. The reason for this was the much more real and present threat of Japan, with whom we were at war (3). As for Reagan's involvement in the Libya, Grenada, El Salvador, Lebanon and Nicaragua, you are right they are questionable. I see them as wise actions to help protect American interests abroad. The "Star Wars" initiative was immensely successful as it forced the Soviets on the defensive. His pullout of Beirut Lebanon was logical. Never before had a terror attack on such a scale been experienced before. This was the bloodiest day in Marine Corps history since Iwo Jima. The nation, and Reagan was rightfully shocked. HE made the decision to pull out because the troops were in obvious danger. The counter attacks that were launched were weak because America was shaken to its core because of the atrocity committed (4). And as for leaving the French with their PAINTS (I assume you meant PANTS), well, I am really not sure on this one. You made no comment addressing the effectiveness of his policy in orchestrating the downfall of the Soviet Union, so I will assume you agree with me that it was a good achievement of his. Next topic: Reagan's domestic Policies 1- http://www.gallup.com... 2- http://en.wikipedia.org...(1978%E2%80%93present) 3- http://afe.easia.columbia.edu... 4- http://www.usatoday.com...
Ronald Reagan was our best President ever

Reagan has traditionally rated well when ranked by historians and scholars, but never making the top ten. When the public at large is asked, he ranks at or near the top. What accounts for the difference between the public perception and the more thoughtful analysis? In this round we will look at what are considered his greatest areas of strength; Forging Policy & Defense Reagan, far from keeping to his words of “not making deals with terrorists” did just that a number of times! In the Iran-Contra scandal, Regan’s administration worked in direct defiance of congress aiding Nicaraguan Contra fighters in a number of ways, most notably by diverting money to them from the sale of missiles to Iran. While it may be hard to fault him at the time, he did fund the Mujahideen in Afghanistan who would later become Al Qaeda. Some of Reagans other military involvement in Libya, Grenada, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Lebanon have highly questionable results and motives. This accompanying an unprecedented ramp-up in defense spending – capped with the monumentally expensive Strategic Defense Initiative called “Star Wars” by most. There is little above that would be unexpected by pro, so I will not dwell on the obvious failures. I would like to point out a more topical failure of the Reagan administration with the current frame of our 7th investigation of Benghazi. Regan’s failed response to the bombings of our base in Beirut Lebanon, and the subsequent withdraw of all troops resulting in major loss perceived power in the middle-east. 241 U.S. military persons were killed that day. In the days that followed Reagan made bold pronouncements that we would not withdraw[2]. In a vain effort to save what little face there was left to save, the U.S. and French mounted an air attack that we never showed up for [3]. We left the FRENCH with their paints down. A little while later, in an even weaker move, we launched a few attacks, followed by complete cut and run. Reagans forging and defense policy has been a lasting net negative for the people of the US. [image1] http://www.brookings.edu...-(3).png || http://content.gallup.com... [2] http://foreignpolicy.com... [3] http://blogs.cfr.org...
I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ

Don't condescend with me. Even when both sides hold conflicting ideas, a degree of respect is important. I told you I could respect your beliefs if you respected the beliefs of others. Don't treat me like a child with dismissive statements like; "Untill you learn to show respect, no more debates for you." I don't take pleasure in destroying the faiths of others, and you have yet to explain what I have accused you of other than not allowing anyone to enter your debates, all the while, you call me a crybaby because I spoke out against you. Your debates always revolve around your username. "lifemeansgodisgood". The basis on which I spoke out was that if on a site dedicated to debate and discussion, you prevented both while making offensive religious claims, that meant you were simply preaching using the site as a pulpit. And look at your debate topics. Who other than non-religious would accept those topics? By blocking the only people who would actually challenge you, you make the Challenges page appear as if it has yet to contest your point of view, thus validating it. I know I am getting sidetracked, but sidetracked is exactly how I would describe your arguments thus far. Instead of actually rebutting or even addressing my points, you revert to giving Mass in the middle of a debate. The debate is about whether or not God committing suicide makes you existence morally good or not. Here is my argument in concise form. 1; God is the only one who says we actually need to justify ourselves. He wants control over us, and considering the trillions he has murdered, he is not a moral force to rely on. Thus, we do not have to explain why by our existence, we morally improve the world. 2; Even if we did have to justify our existence, God had his son killed. He also had himself killed because he is his own child. This raises further questions, but at no point is there an explanation given by you how the actions of one person justify the existence of another. 3; Everyone has the right to life. Even if you don't like someone, or even hate them, they have the right to exist, as every person in the world does. Every person in every religion has the right to exist, and no guilt or punishment should be given to them upon birth. A point I would like to bring up. Don't generalize any group in society. Not all Christians are the same, not all atheists are the same. If you give someone that stigma, you lock down discussion by assuming you already know all the arguments they would have. That isn't healthy for discussion. Debating proves that you believe in your arguments strong enough to risk being proven wrong about them, and by refusing further debate, you show how much you really dislike discussing your beliefs. I will restate this as I feel it is an important part to mention again. I am not telling you to stop debating. I am asking you to stop blocking others from entering your debates. No disrespect here. Person to person; can you promise that? Duncan.
I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ

Duncan, Listen please, young man.You enjoy attacking the faith of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ, despising His work on the cross for you. The reason that I blocked you from accepting challenges with me is that you have nothing to say other than there is no God and you hate me for saying we all deserve to die and burn in Hell and we need to be saved from it. Look back at all the things you have accused me of in this debate. I called you a cry baby and whiner because you cried and whined about not being able to accept my debate challenge. I ignored most of your accusations and slander because it is all baseless. I blocked you and many otherw who can't get past "there is no god" and then they act like you acted here when i tell them God loves them and wants them to be saved from hell to have eternal life in heaven. You, son, if you were to die today, would wake up in the fire of Hell unless you first call on God in the name of Jesus Christ the resurrected Saviour, the only God, and get saved from Hell. He created you and loves you so much He paid the price to save you from Hell even though you say you do not need to be forgiven and you do not care. He still loves you. When you start to listen, I iwll may let you take another challenge wiith me. Atheists generally hate and deny the truth. If you can't admit that you deserve to die, you are not living in reality. You do not deserve to live any more than the guy laying in a hospital bed drawing his last breath of air. If you do not want to read stuff like this, if you don't want to hear it, please just stay away from my debates. You will not be allowed to accept another challenge with me when you are acting like a two year old throwing a big temper tantrum because you want to show your tail. You showed me. You showed me that you think you deserve to live. That is dumb. Nobody deserves to live. We all deserve death and we got it coming in our bodies from the moment we were conceived. Death is God's judgement. Salvation and eternal life is His offer. If you receive His Son as your Saviour, eternal life is the gift of God. I have no ill intentions or desries toward you or anybody else. All I want is for you to know God loves you even though you hate Him. He will give you your heart's desire if you trust Him. If you trust Him, your hearts desire will fall in line with His heart's desire and the hope of eternal life will move you to become like Jesus more and more, to know Him and the power of His resurrection. You are missing out. You are growing up to be an angry atheist, and all that will get you from God is the fire of Hell. I'm telling you the truth. If I let you come on my debates and act this way, I would be dishonoring myself. I kept this challenge closed to prevent atheist from arguing the way you did. It's dumb. I don't care for it. You are not listening. Don't look at my debates if you don't like it. Untill you learn to show respect, no more debates for you.
I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ

The motion for the debate is "I am justified through the blood of jesus Christ". You're the one who set this challenge, so you can't blame me when you forget your own motion. You are proposition on this debate, and have to argue such. You are not here to argue that God loves you. If You attack me, that would be wrong, yes. But if God told you to attack me, then it would no longer be a sin. It would still be immoral. This means that morality exists outside of God, meaning God can be wrong. I am not the one crying out here, preacher. No one deserves eternal suffering. No one. You cannot name a single person who deserves punishment for all of time. That is a terrible sentence, and to wish that on anyone, or falsely claim it will happen to anyone, is a threat, and verbal abuse is morally wrong. It may be wrong, but you don't deserve damnation for that. Question for you. I haven't read the bible in 6 years, why did Jesus commit suicide again? He is his own father, who condemned him to death, which counts as suicide. Who did he buy anyone back from? If every person is born with original sin, then how come Mary didn't have original sin? How come Jesus didn't have sin? The bible needs to be interpreted to make sense nowadays, ask any christian. I doubt even the Catholic Church teaches hell anymore, and if God created the devil knowing full well that he would later have to kill his own son just to appease his own creation, then creating the devil makes all the consequences God's responsibility. Innocent until proven guilty. Prove every person in the world is guilty to the point of having to be justified. Prove God is "guilty" of existing. Prove hell is a place. Prove the bible is more than a religious text. You see, faith is an important part of religion. It's not its entirety. Reason is just as much a factor in religion. You use reason to interpret the bible and have faith in what you interpret. Don't accuse me of being a fool when you try to use the literal context of the bible to try and scare people into doing what you tell them. You know what? As long as you actually let people accept your debates, I'm ok with you making these debates. It is free speech after all, but free speech is not exemption from criticism. If you don't block people from entering your debates, then people can just make their own decision on whether or not you're just a fundamentalist. That is why I spoke out against your earlier debate, and if you accept challengers, then I will have to be satisfied with that. To do any more would be to disrespect your opinion. Can you promise to do that? To respect other and accept their involvement in your debates? Duncan.