BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Richard Nixon was a good President.

I'd like to point out that giving other presidents "despites" was because although that they may have done rash or amoral actions, they were not against the law. The point is moot. Nixon DID break the law, and only so that he could attempt to win the next election. He was guilty of bribery, wire-tapping, lying (With his famous "I am not a crook" speech), obstruction of justice, breaking and entering, and many other charges. The only reason he resigned was because of the threat of the mounting evidence, looming trial, court conviction, and finally, the sure to come impeachment. Now with the rebuttal to the long list of positives: Getting us out of the Vietnam War: This was one of the biggest foreign policy events of his presidency. The interesting thing is, after Lyndon B. Johnson first chose to condone, and later approve of the war, who was destroyed by it later, Nixon decided to do the same thing. He told voters, "We will end this war and make peace." However, he did not get the soldiers out of Vietnam. He instead decided to continue to fight the war, against public opinion. The secret bombings and wartime lies had it's toll on America. By the time he decided to pull soldiers out, another 15,000 were dead, with more then half a million Vietnamese dead as well. He did not "almost win us the war". And the prolonged years of conflict did not help settlements in Vietnam at all. Controlled rising prices: It was later proved and discredited by economists, as the price control turned out to be an utter failure. "Inflation pressed ahead (at 6.6 percent over the period). And when the controls came off, inflation surged still more." In the short term, it helped, but over the four phase period, it became worse and worse, and in the end, failed. Pushing for government to have a higher role: This may or may not be a good thing (there has been an ongoing debate on this). As for equality, he approved affirmative action, which led to allowing jobs to be given based off skin color. However, this allowed unskilled workers to take advantage of this, and simply created more resentment between races. Nixon was not "largely responsible for the equal rights amendment", but he did approve it. As for the large list of organizations he started, he was attempting to do good, but the total spending that is required to sustain them per year is over half a trillion dollars a year. Irresponsible spending. Also, the fact that he lied, cheated, and was dishonest to the American people created mistrust between the government and the people, that reverberates up until now. Overall, there were a lot of positives that I failed to address, as they were, in short, positives of his legacy. However, the cons (NASA budget cuts, failure and indecision in Vietnam, Watergate, criminal activity, failure to curb inflation, affirmative action, causing mistrust and making the American people less trusting of their government, spending ridiculous amounts of money) of his legacy far out shadow his pros.
Richard Nixon was a good President.

We've given Bill Clinton "despites". We've given Hoover, Johnson, Buchanan, Athur, Taft, Wilson "despites", and on many occasions with others we've given Nixon many a "despite." So why does that matter? Every man has his faults. yes, Watergate was big, but he knew he did wrong and resigned so he didn't have to be hated for his country through coming impeachment. Let's look at some reasons why Nixon was a favorable (since you disliked "good") President of the United States. -Started the Environmental Protection Agency. -Negotiated SALT. -Started trade with China -Got us out of Vietnam -Almost won us the war -Controlled rising prices -Flexible for proposals on health care -Flexible for proposals on welfare reform -Pushed for the Government to have a higher role -Promoted lessening of tensions for the Soviet Union -Did not let the economy suffer -Very helpful to the environment -Controlled air pollution -Protected marine animals -Made bodies of water cleaner and healthier -Protected endangered adnimals -Passed OSHA -Gave poor people better jobs -Launched the war on cancer -Largely responsible for the Equal Rights Amendment -Began the process to end the Cold War -Sought peace between Israel and its enemies. That's all I have for now, but I will most likely discover more -PatriotPerson
Richard Nixon was a good President.

Before we begin this debate, I would like to define the parameters of "good president", as the instigator has neglected to do so. Using the dictionary, I have defined the previous term as "The elected head of a nation having or possessing moral value. So, Nixon was not a good president for the following reasons: During the grueling war for our soldiers in Vietnam, Nixon didn't take any decisive action. There was no powerful military push to win the war, nor a quick and efficient retreat. He allowed the war in Vietnam to go on without doing anything, squandering thousands of lives in Vietnam before he finally decided to pull out the fighters from the foreign land. Also, Nixon cut Nasa's budget, making the shuttle program effectively useless when it came into play. Before the reduction, Nasa had planned to implement space stations and shuttles to send astronauts to the stations. However, Nixon simply thought that after the moon, there was no need to follow up in the space race. Finally, although my opponent states that "I believe that the 37th President Richard Nixon was a reasonably good President aside from the Watergate scandal.", the Watergate scandal was indeed a clearly criminal and amoral act. One cannot simply dismiss one of the hugest scandals in American History with a simple "despite". He and his administration were caught illegally spying on the opposing party. Even when faced with the evidence, he denied it continually. Even though more and more evidence was being accumulated, he still refused to resign until the threat of impeachment was above his head. He was one of the few presidents that ever had to retire in disgrace, and clearly not "a good president". I look forward to a fun (and first) debate!
Abortion

Okay. The resolution is "Abortion should remain legal". My opponent is arguing abortion should not remain legal. Both sides have the BOP and must prove something in order to win. I hope we have a good debate and do well. Thank you. Abortion (Operational): The terminating of a pregnancy by the removing or expelling of an embryo or fetus from the uterus. My Arguments: 1. An abortion is a fundamental right for a woman. "A woman's right to choose abortion is a "fundamental right" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Jan. 22, 1973 case of Roe v. Wade." This is true. A woman has the right of an abortion because it her body. Her body is her right. An embyro and/or fetus in a body is technically still her property. She can do what she wants with her property. Since it has been confirmed by Roe vs. Wade, it is legally a fundamental right. 2. Abortions reduce injury and death. "Access to legal, professionally-performed abortions reduces injury and death caused by unsafe illegal abortions." The World Health Organization found in 2006 that homemade abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths each year in countries where abortion is not legal. 3. Anti-abortion stances are usually religious. The pro-life stance is usually a religious belief and threatens the vital separation of church and state. Religious beliefs should not be a foundation for law in the United States. 4. Modern abortion procedures are safe. The risk of a woman's death from abortion is less than one in 100,000. While, the risk of a woman dying from giving birth is 13.3 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies. A 1993 fertility investigation of 10,767 women by the Joint Royal College of General Practitioners and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found that women who had at minumum two abortions experienced the same future fertility as those who had at least two natural pregnancies. 5. Abortion gives option. Abortion gives parents the option to choose not to birth babies with severe and life-threatening medical conditions. Fragile X syndrome, the most common genetic form of mental retardation, affects about 1 in 4,000 males and 1 in 8,000 females. One in 800 babies have Down Syndrome, and one in 3,500 babies are born with Cystic Fibrosis. It is not right to sentence a child to life with a mental handicap. 6. Abortion lowers crime. Many estimates claim that legalized abortion accounted for as much as 50% of the drop in murder, property crime, and violent crime between 1973 and 2001. Teenage girls, single ladies, and poor women are more likely to have unintended pregnancies. Unwanted babies are often raised poor, increasing their chances of leading criminal lives in adulthood. 7. A baby should not come into this world unwanted. 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended . Having children is an important lifetime decision that requires responsible consideration, preparation, and planning. Well, that's all for now. Good luck to my opponent.
Omar should be rejected because his argument is weak. (Bible analogy).

The debate is an Analogy as stated in the proposition. It is giving Con the freedom to assume the bible is 100% true (baring the future events predicted). The purpose of the analogy is to make the situation more understandable by using modern contexts, as the historical context are always lost when people talk about the bible. If this was not obvious I apologize for not putting it more clearly. Con can make his argument as round 2 and round three will be rebuttal and conclusion.
Omar should be rejected because his argument is weak. (Bible analogy).

I've passed by this debate before but didn't comment because It didn't interest me. But I'll bite if you change the situation. You would have to change Omar and present day to Jesus and the events of the Bible. There's no way to put it into context in today's world. We don't know what the world would be like today if Jesus hadn't come and it wouldn't match up with the Bible. If Omar showed up today I would tell him to kick rocks.
Freedom will be a luxury in the future. Discuss in relation to 1984 & North Korea.

I apologize for not quite following what point you were trying to prove. In North Korea, the people are brainwashed to worship their leader as a god, and in 1984, Winston was really the only person believing in himself, and due to the fact of numbers, he eventually gave in to the state. Which, I might add, was still a decision on his part. That does not mean there isn't political dissent in North Korea, it just means the government has more people who worship it than other places. The good news is empires like that always collapse at some point, for it is impossible to control all minds and eradicate ideas. So long as people are able to realize that they own themselves, freedom will always exist, and society will be able to keep the state at bay. This generation's collective open mindedness (if that's a word) is going to lead to a radical change. That could lead to people abandoning themselves entirely for an all powerful authority figure, as with North Korea and 1984, but with the way the ideas of Voluntaryism and Libertarianism are taking off, I believe we may be pushing towards a radical change in the other direction. Since those ideas exist, and are available to everyone through the internet, it would take some serious sanctions by the state to tarnish it. Instead, I believe freedom is taking over the world, and people are seeing private means of replacing the state. The next step in human evolution is not slavery again, it is a world where liberty is priority, rather than luxury. I don't really feel like this was a debate, nor was their any victor or loser. If you'd like to continue this, I will gladly accept a debate challenge or simply continue this in the comments. Always Keep an Open Mind
Freedom will be a luxury in the future. Discuss in relation to 1984 & North Korea.

I see where you are coming from. Firstly your example of the US doesn't relate to the notations introduced in 1984 such as doublethink nor do they relate to North Korea. I didn't choose the topic, my friend did, and so, am trying to 'debate' with another debater about it. I guess what the topic is really saying is that freedom will be hard to obtain in the future. That is, the basic types of freedom that I mentioned earlier..."freedom of expression, to act on one's will" and any other actions that demonstrate autonomy. Let's pretend freedom is a "luxury". However, I loved your point about us being our own authority and that the government is losing grip on the newer generations, but can you link it with relation to 1984 & Korea? Because take Winston for example....He was not under the influence of the Party, he always had rebellious thoughts, and was his own person until the Party used excessive force to change him. That is, tortured him for hours on end, forcing him into submission succumbing to Big Brother, and following the party's ideologies.
Freedom will be a luxury in the future. Discuss in relation to 1984 & North Korea.

The megalomaniacal power grabs of the state are a sign of them losing control. Suggesting freedom can be a luxury is suggesting that people don't own themselves. Every single form of government relies on the consent of the governed, for there is no higher authority in your life than yourself. Every law you follow is by your own choice, and every "authority" figure only owns you because you believe he does. The State can only control people who believe they are in control, which is why this power grab is happening right now. They are realizing that they are loosing their grip on newer generations, who have a higher tendacy to question authority, and are more likely to claim ownership over themselves. This idea is spreading like wildfire, to even include stateless societies trying to form in the US. If the state can't control the minds of the people, they have to try to use force. Once they try to flex their muscle to it's full potential, they will be exposed as being weak, and relying on the consent of all of those in the military/police to follow orders to opress their own people. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) If you would have titled your topic as, "Government's role in society is going to make a radical change in the future, for the worst." We would have a debateable subject. If you want to pretend that's what it is, then we can have an actual debate. Otherwise I will gladly go on further to discuss how the state is all smoke and mirrors, and so long as the idea of freedom exists, it will live on as a right, not a luxury. If you would, please watch this 10 minute video before we go any further so you know where I am coming from. "Beneath this mask, there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask, there is an idea; and idea's, Mr. Creedy, are bulletproof." -V from V for Vendetta
Freedom will be a luxury in the future. Discuss in relation to 1984 & North Korea.

In accordance with George Orwell's 1984 and the world's current totalitarian state, North Korea, freedom will indeed be a luxury. Freedom to act on one's will, freedom of expression and freedom to privacy is destroyed in both totalitarian regimes; given that they both conduct mass surveillance, propaganda and develop cult of personalities in order to restrict these factors that constitute freedom. How does my opponent construct a rebuttal to suggest otherwise that freedom will not be a luxury in relation to the above ideas?
The Best Way to Solve Race Relations in America is for Black People to Go Back to Africa.

All Black people do not continuously argue that white people need to give them things. This may be true of some Black people, But it is also true of some White people. It has more to do with economic class than race. The best way to solve race relations is for all of us to stop teaching racism to our children. Racism is learned, It is not an inherent human trait. We should teach our kids to understand that all races are different and that being different is not necessarily wrong; people should be judged as individuals. You suggest that Black people should return to Africa but would White people consider going back to Europe, Ireland, Etc? Remember, White people stole this land from the Natives, And after, When the Natives asked for reparations, Community policing, Voting rights, Citizenship, Etc. , They were placed on reservations and told that they were asking for too much. They were told that they will never be satisfied, That it will never be enough. It seems that some races have issues with Black people, But all races have issue with White people. On a grand scale, If everyone has a problem with you, Maybe the problem is you.
The Best Way to Solve Race Relations in America is for Black People to Go Back to Africa.

Black People continuously argue that white people need to give them things. Reperations, Community policing, Voting rights, Citizenship, Etc. And it never satisfies them. It will never satisfy them and it will never be enough. The noose of guilt whites in this country will have over slavery will never grow looser, Only tighter. The relationship between Whites and Africans is not worth preserving any longer. It posit it is time to break up. An amicable divorce if you will between two parties. America returns to its original policies on citizenship and immigration that the founding fathers intended but without any slavery. Blacks are given whatever their economic wealth is at the moment and are shipped off to Africa, Never to return except to visit.
i know more

Well, okay then....Pro is asserting that s/he has unlimited power, but has not demonstrated that this is indeed true. Moreover, the resolution is "i know more," not "i have unlimited power," so this is a complete non-sequitur. The only thing Pro has demonstrated is a lack of knowledge about proper punctuation and spelling, so on that alone the resolution fails. Pro has still not specified what s/he knows more of and in relation to what, so without more information there is no reason to believe Pro knows more about anything than anyone. The burden of proof remains unmet.
i know more

Pro is arguing that s/he knows more. S/he has not specified what superior knowledge s/he has, and has not demonstrated how getting votes indicates superior knowledge. Pro must also demonstrate how mental votes are relevant.To recap, the burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate that s/he actually knows more to win this debate. To do this, Pro must specify what knowledge s/he has more of, and how s/he knows "more" about it.
Bryan Mullins: The Forensic Math Decimal and how it works

"Thank you for your argument, but you don't even understand that we're only talking about The Forensic Math Decimal and how it works not to re-prove something that was already proven in another debate. "OK, so we about the forensic math decimal. Got it. "Like I stated before, we were only talking about The Forensic Math Decimal and not something I already proven in another debate. " I understand that this is not the primary subject of the debate, but it IS a supporting detail. It is very important that you explain where you got the number from because that is the number that you first start out with in your equation. If no source is given as to its actual credibility, how will we know if your equation works? You may have proven it in another debate, but this debate requires you to prove it again. "This is how you get the first decimal number, you take the number 18,568,322 and divide it by 365 (Days in a year), then divide it by 19 (the number of years it has happened). Numbers can be translated into letters that can spell out addresses and names, Phillip Alan David was just an example. It is not ridiculous, it is plain mathematical logic. " If I divided correctly, I get approximately 2677.48. I am still wondering what system you are using to get the name Philip from that number. I asked how you do it, and you simply replied with "Numbers can be translated into numbers. .. it is plain mathmatical logic. " It is not plain to me, and thus you must explain it further. This is completely unnecessary, also is very unprofessional for calling me a "troll. " Also, there is no burden of proof. You didn't explain what "elo" means. While it isn't necessary to call you a troll, it is still the truth. Either that or you suffer from delusion. You have offered nothing substantive, so these can be the only two possibilites. Also, there is burden of proof. You are the onle making the oustanding claims, thus it is up to you to prove them. You have not done so. And "elo" are points awarded for winning debates. Your adress sources are nothing but random locations on Google Maps. They do not correclate to your forensic math decimal whatsoever. Conclusion: 1. Burden of proof falls completely on Pro, and he has proven nothing. Also, since there were no provisions that he could argue in comments, he should not be allowed to, and it should be considered against him for conduct if he so chooses to do so. 2. I Googled Forensic Math Decimal, and absolutely nothing comes up about it. It is a figment of his imagination. 3. While calling people trolls or delusional is unproffesional, it is in this case the obvious truth and thus does not help NOR hurt my argument.
Bryan Mullins: The Forensic Math Decimal and how it works

Thank you for your argument, but you don't even understand that we're only talking about The Forensic Math Decimal and how it works not to re-prove something that was already proven in another debate. Without further ado, here are my first rebuttals. 1 "First of all, give me a reliable source that 18,568,322 kids have been eaten for not believing in Christmas. Not one of your videos, I want an actual, legitimate source. If you fail to provide it, it derails your whole math equation. " Like I stated before, we were only talking about The Forensic Math Decimal and not something I already proven in another debate. 2. "How do you "get the first decimal number, which you translate first, which is translated as 'Phillip? '" Please explain. How do you translate numbers into names and addresses? You are being ridiculous. " This is how you get the first decimal number, you take the number 18,568,322 and divide it by 365 (Days in a year), then divide it by 19 (the number of years it has happened). Numbers can be translated into letters that can spell out addresses and names, Phillip Alan David was just an example. It is not ridiculous, it is plain mathematical logic. After you translate Phillip you divide that decimal by the middle number of that decimal, then translate to Alan, then times that decimal to the second power, and divide it by 2, then you can translate to David. That's how you get the names. 3. "I know you are a troll, but thank you for challenging me to this debate, I enjoy easy elo. Please respond to my problems with your argument, as burden of proof is completely on your shoulders. " This is completely unnecessary, also is very unprofessional for calling me a "troll. " Also, there is no burden of proof. You didn't explain what "elo" means. Source of translated addresses: [1] . https://www.google.com... [2] . https://www.google.com... Conclusion: 1. The Forensic Math Decimal works when it comes to names and addresses. 2. There is no burden of proof. 3. Calling people trolls is unprofessional and will not make you win any arguments. I made rebuttals, gave sources for those 2 addresses, and made my conclusion.
Bryan Mullins: The Forensic Math Decimal and how it works

First of all, give me a reliable source that 18,568,322 kids have been eaten for not believing in Christmas. Not one of your videos, I want an actual, legitimate source. If you fail to provide it, it derails your whole math equation. How do you "get the first decimal number, which you translate first, which is translated as 'Phillip?'" Please explain. How do you translate numbers into names and addresses? You are being ridiculous. I know you are a troll, but thank you for challenging me to this debate, I enjoy easy elo. Please respond to my problems with your argument, as burden of proof is completely on your shoulders.