BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If Hilary Clinton will be a good president or not

Rebuttals: Your rape quote, has nothing to do with Hilary Clinton. Honestly, this debate is just the hypothetical question, what if? There is honestly no clue if she is to run or not. It's just that if she was to run, and what power she would bring to the White House. To add onto that, if you do not understand where I quoted or which to read.. It's not very hard to figure out. Just use your mind, and I bet you could figure it out n your own! " therefore if the Republicans send in a younger contender she would be less electable."That's your quote if you didn't know As you know, older people like to claim that they are wise and more experienced. Well, how old is Hilary Clinton? She is like what, 67? Well, knowing this and the fact that she has had experience as the First Lady and being Secretary of State. Knowing this, the Republican would not be able to send someone with such high credentials and experience that she has. Arguments: The Pluses: Who is HIllary Clinton? Just a woman who was shamelessly cheated on? No, she was not only First Lady for 8 years, but was the senator of New York, Secretary of State. Wow! Now, what American would not vote for a humiliated women(by her husband,) and not to mention that she is female, would not vote for her? The Long GOP Primary System Plays to Hillary"s Advantage: This is only one example of how the Republican primary traveling circus went on far too long, hurting the eventual winner, and was extremely debilitating to the image of the party in the eyes of the general electorate. Now in 2016 (unless order suddenly comes from chaos), it looks like we are in for another long, heated, Republican primary season while Hillary assumes the Obama-like incumbent position, ready to pounce on whoever starts to emerge victorious.[1] Cites: [1]http://www.thedailybeast.com...
If Hilary Clinton will be a good president or not

In short, Clinton is unelectable.Were she elected, she would be a bad president to the "roughly 158.6 million females in the US," of who approximately one-in-five will be victims of sexual assault in their lifetime [12], to which Hillary believes in applying a policy of victim blaming against (or at least when they are twelve-years-old and attacked by men in their forties) [7]. Sources:[12] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
should schools turn to a technology school or a normal school

Can you cite the resource that you got this information from? Now, I believe that technology is a waste of resources and tax-payer money for our schools. Let me explain. Technology would be quite pricey for our schools. In a time when teachers are getting laid-off, classes are being cut, and many sports teams are being eliminated to fit within the boundaries of the budget, I believe that placing technology in our schools would be a major setback to our education system. What I wish to see brought into the classroom are more teachers to make class sizes smaller. This is a proved method of increasing direct teacher-to-student one on one time, and to make sure that the students really gets what he/she is being taught. But why is the use of technology in education a downfall to the system? As I stated, it would setback budgets and force the removal of teachers, teams, etc. Technology is one example in a list of many that has brought the public education system down. Before we had technology, before we started to shape the classroom according to the wants of the students, the American education system had much better standings in the world. This is what I want to bring back to the current system. Sure, we'd have to update it just a bit. But traditional methods of teaching have a much better record than the methods that are in place now. The proof can be found in students' grades. "Traditional skills such as critical thinking, reading, writing and math are being forgotten so that shortcuts can be taken and the classroom can be "fun". Let's stick with fulfilling the purpose of schools instead of creating a new one." -Jilleen Rickard I largely agree with this statement. Shortcuts are being taken to ensure that students are having "fun". Shortcuts are demolishing the education system. The USA recently ranked just "average" compared to other international leaders. The problem with adding technology into schools is not only a finical problem. It is a problem that makes us ask ourselves this question - is the education system too broken and decayed to fix? I argue no. We need to reintroduce traditional methods of teaching into education. We have reshaped the classroom enough - an experiment that hasn't worked, and it is apparent in our scores. Adding technology adds to this unsuccessful experiment by allowing bigger shortcuts and larger budget cuts for our public education system.
should schools turn to a technology school or a normal school

Hello. I am glad to be debating with you. I am going to lay out my stance quite simply: I support a 'normal', traditional school because the proof is in the facts. Before we started to modernize education to fit the need of the students, the USA ranked much higher in the world in terms of education. We need to stop reshaping the needs of the classroom, both public and private, and instead focus on what provided us with solid scores: traditional methods of teaching.
should schools turn to a technology school or a normal school

I am going to sum up my stance to voters. Voters, I do not support the integration of technology into public education. Before we started reshaping the classroom to fit the wants of the students, the US public education system was solid. When we started to consider student entertainment, we began to drop. And drop. And today we are only ranked "average" compared to other international leaders when it comes to education. Technology is an example of this reshaping being done in the classroom. It hasn't proved successful. It also will come with an extreme price tag, lots of tax money. My opponent argued that a fundraiser could take place. Sounds good, but it would be a huge flop to schools that have live in poor areas and possess a high number of free-and-reduced-lunch students. Since it would be a voluntary situation, you would see huge gaps between race and gender when it came to test scores; these new scores would not be positive, though. I provided evidence as to why a nation like Japan is so much more advanced than we are. They use the same books, standards, and other educational material around the country. They also don't spend much at all on things other than absolute necessities; but, they are much higher than us academically. The reason we are lagging behind is because of the introduction of a varying education system based on state-by-state, district-by-district, city-by-city. We need consistency throughout our schools to improve educational standings, not introduce inconsistencies. Technology is an inconsistency since some students could afford it and some could not. I hope the voters have listened to both sides, and - by now - have picked the winner.
Libertarians should find a new leader to advocate there views

Pro makes the mistake of assuming legislative success is the only measuring stick of a person's ability to advocate an idea. Is it unimportant that 75% of people now want a full audit of the Fed?[1] Does it not matter that Ron Paul has inspired a youthful movement that will carry on the principles of individual liberty?[2] What about the partial audit of the Fed, Ron Paul is responsible for, that found out the Fed loaned over $16 trillion to banks when the national debt was just over 14 trillion.[3] Minds must change before legislation changes and Ron Paul has done more for Libertarianism in that sense than any other person. In a Washington Post article, Conservative Charles Krauthammer wrote, "Paul was genuinely delighted because, after a quarter-century in the wilderness, he’s within reach of putting his cherished cause on the map. Libertarianism will have gone from the fringes — those hopeless, pathetic third-party runs — to a position of prominence in a major party" and "For libertarianism, it would be a historic moment: mainstream recognition at last."[4][1]http://www.rasmussenreports.com...[2]http://www.slate.com...[3]http://www.realclearpolitics.com...[4]http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Libertarians should find a new leader to advocate there views

DefinitionsCurrent Leader advocating there views, Ron PaulNew leader who could advocate their views, any other libertarians who is not Ron PaulThis is not a debate over wether his supporerst should vote for him this GOP election but rather in reference to future election, both presidential and congressional for that matter.Of the 620 bills sponsored by Ron Paul during his long career in the House of Representatives, only four have ever made it to a vote on the House floor and only one of those became an actual law.This here is that one law he actually had sucess with in 14 years of his service in congress http://www.govtrack.us...As you can see, its a incridebly unimportent pass that has next to nothing to do with advocating 'liberty'.Even if Ron Paul agree's with everything you yourself believe, or even you started to believe what you do because of Ron Pauls preaching it, you should look to get a new person to advocate it who's not Ron Paul to put your suppot behind. When electing someone to represent you, you need a leader who can, you know lead the change you want in washington.If they cant do that, then there just another talking windbag.Do you want the federal reserve audited, so does Ron Paul, but he's a failure for getting that to ever happenDo you want us to get back on a Gold Standard to back the dollar bill, so does Ron Paul but he has been a failure at getting these things to get done.Next time you get to elect a consistant libertarian to stand up for your views, its most rational for you to give a new libertarian the chance to advocate them. Ron Paul has had his chance for 14 years and has shown he is not the leader you need to usher 'liberty' back to America.And once he is no longer in Congress Ron Paul can still do what you like him doing, talking in videos on youtube and saying what you want him to say in media interviews (thats all he's manages to do now sitting in a congressional seat). meanwhile the new libertarian you vote to congress can give his effort at actually making the comprimises needed to bring in the change you want that Ron Paul is always talking about.
Libertarians should find a new leader to advocate there views

First, I would like to apologize again for missing the previous round and I appreciate Pro's understanding and nice words.Pro makes some good points but he misses the boat. Libertarianism is not a new philosophy. It has been around for years yet there has never been a person to bring it as close to mainstream as Ron Paul. There is even a Libertarian political party that offers candidates every election but none of them have had any real success. It is not as easy as pro seems to think to inspire millions to follow a political philosophy. You can't just pass a torch to the next person and expect them to garner the same respect and devotion from the people has Ron Paul. What separates Ron Paul from others is his nearly unmatched knowledge of economics. His years of warning about creating money out of thin air and debt have been validated by our current economic times.[1] In a world where libertarianism is considered "fringe" and "kooky" of course Ron Paul wouldn't have legislative success but what Ron Paul has been able to do is start to break down that barrier. After this much progress has been made, why change anything? Then you run the risk of being counter productive. If a bad football team drafted a quarterback and that quarterback took the team from a losing season to a game away from the playoffs, the coach wouldn't change quarterbacks in the last game.When Ron Paul dies the message won't be lost with him. His thousands of videos on Youtube will still be here. The millions of young people who now support the cause of liberty will greatly influence the political world. The Republican party platform will be filled with libertarian principles. The days of Keynesian prominence will be over. Conclusion: It is unnecessary and possibly counter productive for libertarians to change leaders. It would be a needless gamble.[1]http://www.youtube.com...
targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Rules for this debate. L-D style, (Lincoln- Douglas) no forfeiting, and stay true to resolution. i will be arguing Affirmative, ( the harder of the two) . the rounds will go as follows. round 1) acceptance and rule clarification 2) affirmative's opening statements and negative's opening statements and first rebuttal 3) affirmatives rebuttal and negatves rebuttal 4) affirmatives final rebuttal. and just to be nice, i will give negative the final word. 5) is to critique each other, and to comment on each others skills. this should be a fun topic, and an even more fun debate. it will be a learning experience .
targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

First I will uphold my arguments on his case and then bulster mine. With my argument against his value. He countered with a question of wich is better the killing of one person or many. Well that one life you take will multiply into more and more. The Wyoming Forensics League said that TK will have a hydra effect. That means that you kill one and two more come back stronger and smarter. Then you will have to kill those and then more will come up and it will be an endless cycle of killing. His premise of utotalitarianism falls because with this cycle of killing more death is caused then in conventional warfare. He says that because TK is self defense and that it is preemptive it can't be seen as an act of war. But the group that killed the Arch Duke Ferdinand killed him because he could cause harm to their society so they killed him as a preemptive to self defense. That targeted killing started the first world war wich led to world war two. So that argument still stands. His argument against my attack on his Hitler example. His solution to not sending in a comando team is that we use EXPLOSIVES! How could that cause trouble lets think. These explosives would not only kill the target but many other people that are around them. Some of them civilians. This tears down his value of life. Terrorists have killed thousands but if they are in hiding the group falls apart and they can't kill anyone else. We make it seem as if to take their life. We send in phony opperations to make it seem as if we are targeting them. Now onto my case. When we targeteded Bin-Laden he was the government leader. We had to over throw that government to be able to Kill him without causing more war. So the only way to stop war and to keep treaties with targeted killings is to overthrow that government and put in people who won't care. Again with the act of preemptive. I have explaned how the death of the Arch duke was preemptive and killed thousands of people so his argument is null. And then with his argument that the family was just collateral damage that is undermining his value of life by saying that these few lives we can throw away as long as we get the target. His argument against my third contention. No you would not be a murderer. It was not a thought out plannned attack. If he had killed you then it would have been murder. But just because they are murderers doesn't take away their constitutional right to a fair trial. so that contention still stands. Then in final he says that my grammar was bad so that point should go to him. Though if you look at his last argument you will find just as many if not more gramarical issues. In this argument I have succesfully nullified his arguments against my case and been further able to atck his case. So I urge the voters to vote in a negative ballot.
targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

I negate the resolution. My value for the debate is international cooperation. My criterion is justice out lined by the the constitution of the united states. Contention one: Targeted killing is detrimental to international cooperation. If we are in a treaty negotiation with another country then we go in and kill some leader in their society that could crash the negotiations. If we do not have negotiations but have a standing treaty like with Pakistan and we go and kill a leader then that could break the treaty. If we don't have a treaty or are in negotiations but we want to go in to get a treaty at a later date but we have gone in and killed leaders then they will be less likely to want to negotiate peace with. Contention two: Targeted killing is an act of terrorism. When we do targeted killings we become what we are fighting. I will use the case of Bin-Laden as an example. When Seal Team six went in to kill Bin-Laden. they not only killed him but they also killed his unarmed children and wife, as well as Bin-Laden who himself was unarmed. This is what terrorists do. They kill unarmed men women and children. Other countries will be afraid that if they do something we the country do not like then we will go in and target some of their leaders until they behave how we want them to. Contention three: Targeted killing is murder. Definition Murder: the premeditated act of killing another human being. What is targeted killing? It is a thought out decision to kill a certain person. This according to my definition which is from ,Merriam Webster, is murder. Murder under any circumstances is wrong. Therefore the act of targeted killings can't be moral. By this point alone I prove that the resolution is null. Now going over my opponents points. His value is life. This is a null point on that with targeted killings a life is lost. Therefore his value doesn't stand. With his first point of only way we can take out a threat without declaring war. if we go in to a country and kill someone then they could perceive it as an act of war. They would openly declare war and more lives would be lost and his value of life will a gain fall. His second point that of it being better of conventional warfare as with what I stated in the second contention tears this point out of the way too. his example of WW2 falls too because we couldn't drop troops straight into Berlin they would be shot down before they got past the city wall they would never have a chance to take down Hitler. His third point the preemptive striking of terrorists prevents them from taking thousands of lives. But they have already taken thousands of lives. If they think we are targeting them they will go into hiding and won't be able to run the group, but with this method we do not take the life we only make it seem as if to take their life. Because of the reasons I have provided I urge you to vote for a negative ballot.
Star wars is inferior to Star trek

You claim that the characters of star trek don't change. Have you scene the wrath of Khan story arc, in witch Kirk becomes old and Spock 1demonstrates his humanity 2dies resetting his acceptance of human life. And what about a terrorist plot to kill thousands is interesting or family frendly, the entire premises reminds my of either the dark knight saga or 9/11. The fights are simple are self serving I know Luke will never die because he is the force is with him. And even though Han isn't a force user he never dies because the best trained army in the galaxy can't hit a target 50 meters distant.
Star wars is inferior to Star trek

Although 'The Force Awakens' was a disappointment on every level, The original 'Star Wars' series is an exciting, family friendly adventure filled with thrilling fight scenes, clever character development, and an intriguing plot. 'Star Trek', I will admit, isn't terrible. The series is mostly focused on plot rather than action, which isn't a bad thing, but it's not always as fun to watch as a good lightsaber fight. There isn't much character development, leading the viewers to be less interested in the characters themselves.
Star wars is inferior to Star trek

Star Trek is a complex and engagingly logical version of the future, star wars is totally nonsensical and more fantasy then science fiction revolving around a god-like force that supports a terrorist organisation featuring psychotic clergymen. It insistently refuses to add actual peril by simply saying "the force is with them". The entire premise is one of simplicity designed to provide a brief escape which it fails to do , the universe is never present in the films, the action is unexciting and there are no characters.
The Bureaucracy violates the "separation of powers" of the three branches of government

As pro points out the main articles I, II, and III establish the duties and powers of each of the three branches of the United States government. This creates as separation of powers in which the legislative branch makes law, the judicial branch interprets the laws(a power not expressly established until Marbury v. Madison), and the executive branch enforces or executes the laws guided by a chief executive officer being the President of the United States. The Bureaucracy consists of the 15 executives departments the heads of which are known collectively as the President's cabinet. These departments carry out the enforcement and implementation of legislation passed by congress and signed into law by the President. Legislation often does not provide all the steps necessary to carry out and enforce or implement laws passed by congress. The legislation only provides basic guidance. This is where rulemaking and regulation comes in. In order to carry out the functions of the bureaucracy and enforce law the rulemaking process creates not new law but rather how the law and its intent as passed by congress can be enforced and implemented. This is not a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers as the president under his(or maybe soon her) office is tasked with taking steps to enforce and implement the law. Congress and the Constitution empower the executive branch to carry out rulemaking and regulation in the passage of any bill. Courts have never ruled executive rulemaking and regulation unconstitutional and most executive rules and regulations are upheld by courts when challenged. We see that studies of judicial review typically find that 70% of agency rules are upheld with the Supreme Court upholding 91% of rules; a 2011 empirical study of judicial review found that 76% were upheld. (1) Thus, the notion of actions of the executive branch bureaucracy being unconstitutional is only a question of theory and not a practical legal question. The truth is bureaucratic rulemaking and policy is essential to the executive branch carrying out its Constitutionally mandated duties. One can argue that there are too many laws, and too many rules and departments but that is a practical argument about the size and scope of government and is not at question here. Even with a smaller more efficient government the tool of executive department rulemaking would still exist and would still not violate the Constitution.
You shouldn't travel the world.

On the contrary to what my opponent says, traveling is actually very beneficial. What I don't believe you understand is how important it is to travel. Traveling gives the chance for many life experiences and interactions you could never get if you remain stationary. For example many careers involve a certain level of communication skills with different types of people and ethnicity's. Yes, many parts of the world are dangerous but, unless you live inside of some utopia living off of processed food, you likely live in a some-what dangerous environment yourself. Also, not all of the world is dangerous, in fact, most of the world is currently at peace. So on the contrary, now would be the perfect time to travel while there is minimal war.