BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
US should bomb Agrabah

Again, my opponent fails to make any convincing argument as to why we should bomb Agrabah, instead choosing only to hurl insulting remarks at me,(ouch) which were chock full of rhetorical, clique, catch phrases. I'm surprised he left out some of the most obvious ones like "freedom isn't free" and " we're gonna make 'murica great again". A couple of chestnuts that would have fit in great with your argument. *My opponent does not make a convincing argument about the dangers of magic. Agrabah has supposedly had magical technology for decades, and it hasn't been a threat to us so far, however just because my opponent is suddenly frightened by it, he expects the rest of us to jump!?! He accuses me me of "hating on those (and not supporting) those who defend (me) while (I) sleep". If his idea of "supporting", is to constantly call on our men and women who serve, to go fight for HIM whenever HE'S afraid, perhaps they would rather not have his support. *My opponent didn't prove that Agrabah would not be a beneficial trade partner. Sadly, sometimes, our country trades with not so nice countries, but that's how capitalism works. Agrabah may have slavery which is disgusting, but our country trades with SEVERAL countries with slavery. Uzbekistan, China, India, have huge numbers of people living in slavery. Human trafficking is rampant amongst those and other countries, and even a problem in the U.S. I fail to see how bombing Agrabah could solve that. I also don't think trade with any of these countries effects this problem either way, it will continue anyway. The problem of modern slavery must be tackled by all countries of the world, and simply pointing the finger at other countries, while ignoring it at home, solves nothing!!! *My opponents argument seems only be based on a concept of war for the sake of war. It is a twisted vision of globalization, without thinking of the consequences to the victims of war. Again, I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me to make my case in this argument, and I congratulate him on making a good argument on his part. Good luck!!!
US should bomb Agrabah

"*Threat to national security!?! How many "threats to national security" do we have to rise up to, before we realize it is our own foreign policy that's the real threat?" A preventative foreign policy is the only viable security strategy in the age of radical extremists and rouge states armed with WMD. These are the same people who are willing to throw acid in young girls faces for not wearing veils, strap suicide vests onto children, blow themselves up in crowded market places with nail or car bombs, and behead journalists and humanitarian aide workers on national TV. They don’t care about deterrence or containment, have no fear of death, and cannot be counted on to act rationally. "Threat to our freedom!!!"" Try very serious threat to our own survival. Magic is an existential threat to all of humanity and cannot be allowed to fall into the wrong hands; less somebody uses the lamp and wishes all into extinction. "If I'm expected to have to shell out more hard earned cash(taxes) and possibly be drafted because all these war vultures think I should drop everything and come a runnin whenever they're scared of some "tyrant with a lamp", how can I get on with my pursuit of happiness?" That is an incredibly selfish statement of you; and as Donald Trump would say, you ought to be ashamed of yourself for hating on those (and not supporting) the very people who defend you while you sleep. [Insert Thug Life / Snoop Dawg Jam]. "Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan are just a few totalitarian countries the U.S. has trade relations with, and of course the biggest trade partner with the U.S. is China. How do you think THAT effects America's moral standing?" None of those countries practice slavery – which is against international law. Nor are they proliferating Magic or WMD. Giving aide or trade to Agrabah would also increase its value as a security threat, seeing as they would have more cash on hand to fund military expenditures or terrorist activities. We also should not be rewarding countries for bad behavior as it does lower our diplomatic leverage (and moral standing) with countries like Iran and N.Korea. *"Agrabah would be a terrible vacation spot." Dude, are you kidding me?" Not kidding. As I’ve stated before: its hot, dry, crowded, impoverished, badly lacks water, is swarming with thieves, gangs, and prostitutes, is surrounded by desert, has totalitarian laws, a secret police, and lacks all sorts of modern tech, including wifi, air conditioning, and indoor pluming. Agrabah's primary export is Crazy Hakim’s Discount Fertilizer for crying out loud: http://static.tvtropes.org...
US should bomb Agrabah

*Threat to national security!?! How many "threats to national security" do we have to rise up to, before we realize it is our own foreign policy that's the real threat? Threat to our freedom!!! If I'm expected to have to shell out more hard earned cash(taxes) and possibly be drafted because all these war vultures think I should drop everything and come a runnin whenever they're scared of some "tyrant with a lamp", how can I get on with my pursuit of happiness? If your pursuit of happiness includes chasing after monkeys on flying carpets, well by all means don't let me get in your way, but when you expect me to have to help pay for it, or even possibly go with you, just leave me out!!! The sultan hasn't expressed any interest whatsoever in using magic against the U.S. There are no known ties to terrorism, and you haven't shown any specific threat to us from Agrabah, other than they have a genie in a bottle (GENIE, trust your auto correct). You know, it's not out of the realm of reality that Canada could get the bomb, should we invade them, for the sake of being proactive? *"Trading with Agrabah (and a totalitarian government) would ruin America's moral standing in the world." Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan are just a few totalitarian countries the U.S. has trade relations with, and of course the biggest trade partner with the U.S. is China. How do you think THAT effects America's moral standing? Just because another country has a different governing system than ours, shouldn't automatically bar them from engaging in trade with us. Ideally, trade should be governed by individual companies, not the government. Unless a trade partnership could pose a real threat to national security, then our government must disallow that partnership, but you haven't shown any real threat posed to us by Agrabah! *"Agrabah would be a terrible vacation spot." Dude, are you kidding me? They have friggin magic!!! They could make your vacation getaway, anything you could ever want it to be, and more. So you don't like hot and dry. Whoosh, and with just one wave of a magic wand, the weather is transformed into a mild and sunny evening, and the forecast calls for calm, rolling thunder showers at night. Oh, I'm sorry sir, did you say, not enough water? Whoosh, then suddenly that distant glimmering mirage is transformed into a beautiful lagoon oasis, with frolicking waves under a purple sunset. I'd love to continue with this argument and tell you more about this sublime, Agrabanian vacation, but Genie just whooshed me up a cigar and an endless bourbon on the rocks, and Black Sabbath is here playing Laguna sunrise, just for me, so I'll have to hit you up later. PEACE:)
US should bomb Agrabah

Rebuttals:"A military action in Agrabah would be a waste of tax dollars." Its not a waste of tax dollars if it can proved that Agrabah is a threat to national security. Magic of course, defies the laws of physics, and an unregulated walking, talking, singing, magic wielding, carpet-flying, WMD (like the gene) that answers to no government and could literally transform a monkey into an elephant though a wave of his hand, is of course a threat to national security. The gene lamp cannot be allowed to fall into the wrong hands."Agrabah could make a good trade partner."Trading with Agrabah (and a totalitarian government) would ruin America's moral standing in the world. How could we possibly claim then to be a political leader of the free world (and a leader at the United Nations) if we are willing to trade and give aide to countries that denigrates women, devalues democracy, and promotes slavery? The diplomatic consequences are too much then for us to ever consider trading with Agrabah. "Agrabah could be a wonderful vacation destination."Agabah would be a terrible vacation spot. Its hot, dry, impoverished, lacks water, is swarming with thieves and prostitutes, is surrounded by desert, has totalitarian laws, a secret police, and as far as we know, only has 13th century tech - which of course means no wifi, air conditioning, or indoor pluming.
US should bomb Agrabah

1. Agrabah poses no threat to the United States. A military action in Agrabah would be a waste of tax dollars. We have on going, unresolved military actions in several other countries currently, an invasion in Agrabah would become to costly for American taxpayers. Invasion of Agrabah would needlessly create another enemy for us, and the ensuing power struggle after the regime topples could leave the country in danger of extremist groups ( Isis, al queda, Taliban) setting up training camps. 2. Agrabah could make a good trade partner. Agrabah has a rich cultural heritage, and many resources that could be beneficial for American business, most notably it's magical powers, a recourse the U.S. hasn't tapped into. Trading nuclear power, for in site on how to build our own magical power program, could prove highly beneficial to both our countries. It could create a great ally in a region where there aren't many for us. 3. Agrabah could be a wonderful vacation destination. Prince Ali has shown interest in progressive reforms for his nation, not to say Agrabah is without problems, but if the U.S. can help to influence more democratic ideals in Agrabah, it could become a wonderful vacation destination, which in turn could expand Agrabanian economy which could create better options for Agrabanian society. Agrabah would make a better military/business ally than it would just another country for the U.S. military monster machine to needlessly invade for the sake of profit for crony corporations more willing to take government handouts, than being legitimate competitive companies. DON'T BOMB AGRABAH!!!! I would like to take this time to thank my opponent for letting me argue in this FRIGGIN WEIRD debate, and I wish him luck!!!
US should bomb Agrabah

1) The Sultan is a Tyrannical DictatorHe literally spends his days playing with animal figurines and counting gold dust while the rest of his kingdom starves, and has no regard for improving the welfare of his people. He also appoints evil mad men to be his adivsors and arranges marriages for his daughters.2) Agrabah is a Police StateCitizens of Agrabah can be improisoned without trial or forcibly have thier hands cut off for minor offences, such as strealing a loah of bread. The sultan's guards also act as a secret police force. 3) Magic is a major threat to National SecurityThe gene is basically an unregulated WMD and could wreck an entire country if he choose to. Jaffar can also turn himself into a giant snake and manipulate minds with his staff.4) Agrabah is okay with slaveryPrince Ali offered slaves to the Sultan so he could marry Princess Jasmine. Human slavery is obvisouly against international law and should be punished.
Capital Punishment Is Justice Best Served Swiftly

Thank You for the warm welcome, nice to meet you as well Con. Sorry if the subject matter is a bit repetitive on the site already, I wanted to start with a nice well known issue for my first go. The notes about inefficiency are indeed irrelevant for the most part, and even though I hold those assertions to be correct there will be no further mentioning of them in my arguments. Now that someone has indeed accepted the debate, I can reveal the statistical support for my arguments. Without further adieu, 1. Morality a. Con's assertion that the original argument I posted was " based purely upon the reasoning that two wrongs make a right" is wholly incorrect. This might be true had we established that capital punishment is wrong, the very reason for this entire debate. The point I was making was that once a murderer chooses to violate another person's right to life, he immediately forfeits his own rights due to the negligence to others rights. Therefore, when a court sentences a man to death it is not murder for the man has no guaranteed right to live. The courts action is not another wrong at all. b. As for the analogy used by Con, "While Pro may champion the death penalty as a proportional punishment, murdering a murderer makes as much sense as the government breaking into a thief's house to steal his possessions." I would advise him not to compare human lives to material things. c. Con argues that criminals should undergo rehabilitation, as opposed to the death penalty. Any criminal that would ever be sentenced to death by today's standards would ever have a chance at rehabilitation. We are talking about first degree murderers, most often with aggravating circumstances at that. As discussed earlier in this post, these people have given up their right to life the moment they knowingly took the right of someone else. They do not deserve opportunities. 2. Retribution a. While obviously not the priority of the courts, the comfort it adds to the victims family and friends is a strong bonus of capital punishment and it should be noted. 3. Deterrence a. http://www.benbest.com... This chart vividly illustrates a clear correlation between the homicide rate and execution rate, more executions mean less murders. Data was collected from the Bureau of Criminal of Criminal Justice. b. http://www.cbsnews.com... Here we have a showcase of a study from professors at the University of Colorado that came to the conclusions that for every execution, five murders are prevented. These results were found even as the professors admitted themselves to be against the death penalty. c. The statistics Con displays in section a of his deterrence argument hold that murder rates are higher among states with the death penalty than those without. This data supports the pro argument because it could be that those states reverted to the death penalty when faced with the large murder rates. This is far from over Mr. Con, good luck.
Capital Punishment Is Justice Best Served Swiftly

Definition of Capital Punishment: Capital punishment is the death sentence awarded for capital offences like crimes involving planned murder, multiple murders, repeated crimes, rape and murder etc where in the criminal provisions consider such persons as a gross danger to the existence of the society and provide death punishment. Contention: Capital Punishment is a moral and just punishment in the cases mentioned in the above definition. I would also argue that the current method of execution is vastly inefficient and costly. Reasons: - Morality: I don't think anyone here will disagree that humans have an essential right to life. This belief is rooted in our very laws governing murder. Now the logic follows that when one person violates that right, they should be punished. Said person also loses his rights upon showing his negligence for the victims. It is completely reasonable to draw upon these facts the conclusion that someone who shows such disregard for human life shall face the same punishment. To do otherwise would be immoral, given the said violator showed clear understanding of his actions and intent for the crime. - Retribution: The punishment offers a large amount of comfort to friends and relatives of the victim. - Deterrence: Capital Punishment also functions as a deterrent in society against violent crimes. This can be shown by the very low figures in violent crime rates among countries that almost always carry out on the death penalty, such as Singapore. In crimes where the violators have a large amount of fore thought before the action, capital punishment acts as a great deterrent. - Cost: Keeping inmates alive is extremely costly and we spend huge amounts of money each year on convicts in prison for life. Swift and efficient executions could drastically reduce these expenditures. I eagerly await a response.
Capital Punishment Is Justice Best Served Swiftly

Like I said: you go up against ABearica, you simply disappear. It's as simple as that. So, to briefly recap: 1. Due to my opponent's questionable strategy of withholding his sources until Round 2, and also to Pro's forfeits, the conduct point goes Con. 2. Spelling and grammar don't seem to have been much of an issue in this debate, so I would recommend a tie. 3. Con has clearly dominated the arguments, having capitalized on Pro's drops and completely torn down any arguments that he left standing. 4. Con also receives the 2 points for sources, for not only provided a maelstrom of links, but also for managing to poke holes in the credibility of Pro's evidence, and providing a scenario in which Con would ultimately still come out on top. With 6/7 points going Con, I would again assert, dear Pro, that this debate was over from the beginning. ;)
Water is not wet!

Definition of wet: covered or saturated with water or another liquid. To say that something is wet means that the wetness can be dried. If I spill water on a table, it becomes wet and can be dried, but can I dry the water inside of a bottle? NO. Humans can get wet, tables can get wet. A fire burns things but does it mean that fire itself is burned? NO. Water can get things wet but does that mean itself is wet? NO. Can water cover itself? NO. therefore it is not wet because the definition is covered with another liquid. According to your logic, if water molecules touch each other, they are considered wet. So the air is wet? Because water molecules in the air are bumping into each other.
Rose Quartz Did NOT Shatter Pink diamond

Hi there, my name is attourney Randal P. Stevenson. I think I may be able to counter your argument. While you may want to focus on the smaller, more minute aspects, I like to talk about the whole picture... THE LEABIANS. I knew, from the moment I saw my son watching this VILE show, that it was clearly SJW propaganda, propagated by the neo-nazis of cartoon network. Seeing as how youv'e been CORRUPTED by the satanic workings of this show and the beliefs of the neo-nazi regimes that are responsible for the inception of this DISBUSTTING tv show, I will offer you a free conversion therapy at my local Mosque (15.326572, -76.157227)
Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes

First, I would like to point out that the debate says "Professional Athletes." High schoolers taking steroids is a completely different debate than this one. Anabolic steroids are a substance that boosts your testosterone levels in your body. There are different kinds of steroids that have different effects on your body. Some increase your stamina, others your muscle mass, and so on. These substances are like other kinds of technology we see on the sports field. For example, a shoe that increases running speed, or a swimsuit that increases your aerodynamical position and your ability to freely move all your limbs. These are both examples of technology on the playing field, just like steroids. Taking steroids is just like drinking a protein shake, it increases your athletic ability, and it should be allowed in professional sports.
Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes

Well, I would certainly like to see a match with people at their maximum potential. It would basically be seeing the best of the best in the match of the century. It would be amazing to watch. The game would not be like watching robots play, either. Considering the fact that sports players have brains that they use on the field, the match would be very different than what you propose. I'm surprised that you haven't made the argument that 'steroids are dangerous for athletes so they shouldn't use them'. Well, just so you don't use that in this final round, I am going to clear this up. If steroids were legalized, then they would actually be safer. Why? Because it would be done under the guidance of a doctor who can monitor how the athlete is doing with the steroids. The reason it is so dangerous now is because athletes don't know the right amount to take, so they overdose and die. Thank you for being my first opponent. I really enjoyed this debate.
Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes

Sports are not about the practices. If they were, then they would be televised a lot more. What matters are the games. Those are what everyone wants to see. If a professional athlete took the right amounts of the right kinds of steroids, then his game performance would be better and the team would do better. If I were a coach, I would allow my players to do just that so we could beat the other team.
Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes

You also agree that taking steroids are like getting a free 48 hour workout. If you know that, then how is it fair. Sports are all about building up skill by PRACTICING. It's not the race to see who can take the most pills so they can be stronger, faster, more stamina, etc. If you could take a pill and you'll be better every day, then sports would be a joke.
Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes

I would have to disagree with you there. You are correct that steroids is getting a free 48 hour workout, and that is precisely why it should be legalized. From what I see in your argument, you are saying that it is about having the skill through practice. In a professional sports team, it is all about getting into the championships or the playoffs or whatever the finals are. Sports are not about leveling the playing field. In all sports, everyone is different. There are short people, tall people, light people, heavy people. We are not going to level the field by making everyone 5' 10" and 220 lb. It just isn't going to happen.
Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes

It is unfair for athletes to take drugs. It is like getting a free 48 hour workout by just taking a pill. You get into professional baseball or any other sport because you practiced hard, and that you are good. Protein shakes are like eating healthy. That's what people have to do to stay fit. In steroids there are many chemicals to boost what ever it boosts. It is just unreasonable to have steroids legal in professional sports.