BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Leave Iraq immediately, and a while ago if possible.

You seem to agree then that the "security from WMD's" has been achieved, since you are under the impression that no such WMD's exist, so that's one matter resolved. Democracy may indeed be "not about having an election." But do you wish to say what it is about precisely? According to the Oxford English dictionary, it is about "government through elected representatives" (which it has, as it has had an election and those elected are governing it, to that extent they are capable anyway.) It is about "Control of an organization or group by the majority of it's members (which has certainly been achieved to some extent, as the majority of Iraqis have controlled the situation by allowing the violence to continue). It is about "The practice or principles of social equality..." I rather think the Iraqis are becoming more equal in the amount of terror and poverty they live in.... They have equality up to their necks! So which definition of democracy has not been met? I should note it is utterly false that "America has always gone for democracy." Saddam Hussein is only one of a long list of dictators who the United States has propped up, including the likes of Mobutu Sese Seko, Ngo Dinh Diem, and whoever was in charge of the Taliban. Our own Constitution is an explicitly antidemocratic document. Why is it not okay if Iraqis kill each other? They are attempting to kill us. They are thus our enemy. When our enemy's enemy is also our enemy, it's basic military strategy to step out and let them fight each other, so as to defeat the survivor later. What "Big role" do you expect them to play? Iraqi security? As I have already outlined, our presence does nothing to aid Iraqi security, it simply adds more meat to the blender. The recent advances in lowering the death rate is because they have already "ethnically cleansed" their neighborhoods, and thus are reaching equilibrium. Which means that our presence only provides a continual target. By "now" I mean we send the ships/planes now, and the retreat order now, as in today preferably, and as soon as enough ships and planes get there to take everybody home, everybody goes home. We have some fast planes and ships :D How exactly will more terrorist groups to attack the US be created in Iraq when they no longer look down the barrel of our guns? The terrorist presence has risen, not fallen, since our entrance, and therefore the facts on the ground oppose your argument. Especially when you consider that every dollar and soldier not used in Iraq can be used to fight terrorism somewhere else.
Leave Iraq immediately, and a while ago if possible.

What an idea ladies and gentlemen???? alright Ragnar%5FRahl my name is sano and hope we will have a good debate here. first you said that the objectives of the war have been achieved by the US and i strongly disagree with you. Iraq was believed to have weapon of mass destruction which was then proven wrong later..That is fine.. and then as we all know America has always gone for democracy and has that been achieved so far in Iraq? I said no and you should know that democracy is not just abou having an election. I was so shocked when you said that Lets us leave Iraq and it is ok if Iraqis kill each other... that was quite bad my dear and how will people then see America? the credibiliy of the America and so on... America has a big role to play in Iraq now and you cant ask them to leave now.. I would like you to define what you mean by now??? today, tomorrow, next month... what do you mean? How about the Iraqis' security??? dont you care about that??? that will even create more terrorists groups at the end... alright i am waiting for your first argument and yeah will then let you know of mine... Thank you and have a nice day
Leave Iraq immediately, and a while ago if possible.

Just an FYI, as my profile will tell you, I support the "war in Iraq." So why am I arguing this? Quite simply, because the goals were achieved a long time ago, and every second we stay now makes the situation (for America anyway) worse. The justifications for entering the war were the following: Iraq was a danger due to WMD's (admittedly there is very little evidence of this aside from large containers of chemical materials that are useful for making them), but it was widely believed at the time, Iraq could be made into a beacon of democracy and freedom for the Middle East (proving rather difficult, even if you ignore our serious shortages in those goals and the somewhat contradictory nature of them), and Saddam Hussein was a genocidal tyrant who ruled in a manner harmful to American interests (true, and it was definitely our mess to clean up). Iraq has held an election, it solved little. Scratch goal two unless we have better plans. Iraq has been checked for WMD's, none are there (except the ones provided by Iran recently, which only go up as our invasion goes on). Goal one is as accomplished as it will be. Saddam and all his party are dead or disgraced- goal three is clearly accomplished. So what are our troops doing there? At present, fighting an "insurgency" i.e. people resisting the conqueror. If we are not there for conquest, insurgents are not our enemies, and the fact of their existence is a sign that it's time to leave. If we are, we picked a helluva expensive conquest without much reward. Yes, the Iraqis will fight each other when we leave. Guess what: That's a positive for America. Fewer of them will have time to fight us. We can't stop it anyway, unless we exterminate at least one side (obviously undesirable); sticking soldiers in the middle just makes it take more ammo and costs US lives. When they've learned not to fight each other, that's a positive too: They aren't gonna have power projection to attack us, and in any case will probably be sick of the hardship of war and want a taste of the Peace with America economic pie. For those afraid Iran will get too much influence... how? Frankly I'd like to see them try, seems to me they'll just burn themselves if they stick a hand into the fire we'd be leaving next door. And finally for those afraid of losing control of Iraqi oil- The rise in oil prices resulting is much cheaper than a war, and the oil there will be quite available later when they are sick of fighting each other.
Who should be the president

I accept. First I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me. First, I would like to point out that my opponent only made the arguments that Hillary is a woman, and no political arguments to support her cause and issues. I will be arguing that Hillary would not make a good president. Lets start with Foreign Policy. First, take a look at this http://www.globalresearch.ca... The debt from the wars we have fought abroad cost 6 trillion. And note, this was written one year ago, so it's not even current. There is probably a higher number. Now take a look at this number. http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us... At the end of FY 2015 the total government debt in the United States, including federal, state, and local, is expected to be $21.694 trillion. So now I ask you, in you're opinion, do you think we can continue to fight wars abroad and continue to deliver foreign aid, and somehow stay on to of this debt? Do you think we will be able to continue nation building with this type of debt. We're using money to blow up bridges in Afganistan and then rebuild them, when there are most pressing issues here in the United States, and other more important things we could use this money for. http://www.politifact.com...-/ This link also shows you that back during the Republican Primaries for the 2012 election, Ron Paul got the most donations from the military out of all of them. Note that Ron Paul was a candidate that WANTED to bring the troops home from overseas. Hillary Clinton's stance on this issue is for more involvement and more nation building, a practice that will inevitably and eventually, suck the budget dry. This is my opening response, and I will address other issues, such as gun control, drones, The NSA, and other issues such as the constitution.
Min Rap Battle

Kinda bored, so I'm gonna do another rap battle. However, I don't want to get fully involved in one because the tourney is still going on, so it will be mini. Rules: 1. R1: Acceptance 2. R2, R3: Rap 3. Only 4 bars (lines) allowed per round. 4. 12 hour time to rap, since it's so short. 4. Good luck, fight hard. Yeh
In 21st c., Poor family shud hav no more than 1 offspring & rest no more than 2

My statement was not a fallacy but a completely reasonable inference. 2nd definitions are used less commonly so my first post was in regards to the 1st definition. By specifying later, he takes an unfair advantage. My opponent seems to agree that this debate is entangled in a "web of technicalities. " What does that stem from? His initial topic. Therefore, my opponent agrees that his topic clearly has fundamental flaws already. Then, my opponent seems to go on a tangent.
In 21st c., Poor family shud hav no more than 1 offspring & rest no more than 2

My opponent's statement that ""My opponent clearly gave the definition as a biological child"" is a clear fallacy. Secondly, the source gives 2 meanings for the word "parentage". Thus, the meaning that is defined first stands irrespective whether it is commonly or "less than commonly used". Unfortunately this debate seems to have got entangled in the web of technicalities. But apart from the arguments in the debate, the topic of this debate I believe is worth pondering upon.
In 21st c., Poor family shud hav no more than 1 offspring & rest no more than 2

I believe this is now a debate on the definition of the term "offspring. " However, there is nothing to debate about. My opponent clearly gave the definition as a biological child. However, he later changes the term to mean something else by unnecessarily defining "parentage" in a less that commonly used context, which is unfair to me and the integrity of this debate. Dictionary. com's primary definition of parentage is "birth, origin, or lineage. " Therefore, I believe I still win.
In 21st c., Poor family shud hav no more than 1 offspring & rest no more than 2

Since in my 1st argument definition of the word "offspring" was already provided the rephrasing/redefining of the same word is redundant. Thus, offspring stands as 'a child of particular parentage'. Next, I will like to define: parentage=state or relation of a parent http://dictionary.reference.com... So, even if an individual adopts he/she will be the respective parent. Hence, the argument is - Poor family shud not hav >1 offspring irrespective whether adopted or not. Thus, argument is still on
In 21st c., Poor family shud hav no more than 1 offspring & rest no more than 2

If my opponent defined "offspring" as a biological child (as an adopted child is not one's offspring), what will prevent a poor family from adopting from other families? We will be, as he claims, crippling "the livelihood & human development potential of the respective person," as poor families may have an infinite number of children. Therefore, it can be easily said that my opponent's idea is flawed. Since I only have to show why his idea is flawed, I believe I have already won at this point.
In 21st c., Poor family shud hav no more than 1 offspring & rest no more than 2

Defining pointers: Poor individual - Any person living in the BPL segment. BPL = Below poverty line = An international monetary threshold under which an individual is considered to be living in poverty. It is calculated by taking the poverty threshold from each country - given the value of the goods needed to sustain one adult - and converting it to dollars Source: http://www.investopedia.com... rest = here i will like to define rest as the individuals above poverty line in their respective countries. offspring = A child of particular parentage http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Argument: Any BPL person, as defined in his country of residence, should not have more than one child. The premise is that with such limited earning potential which cripples the livelihood & human development potential of the respective person it is unfair on the child to not get a decent livelihood out of the limited resources which he/she will have to share with his/her sibling if more than one offspring is there. Apart from this it will also be difficult on the respective nation to have truly effective financial inclusion policies.
I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian

I partially watched the video as asked, but found that it had little impact on my feelings towards meat. I was already well aware of the bitter things that occur in slaughterhouses to put food on our plates; I find it is a necessary evil to maintain a healthy lifestyle with all the nutrients you need to survive. Vegetarians must take extra precautions to gain every nutrient the human body requires. [1] The resolution was that Pro would turn me vegetarian. This has not happened; I will continue to eat meat. Thank you for the quick debate. [1] - http://www.medicinenet.com...
Was The Holocaust real

(Not as one sided as one would think, I'm afraid.) The Holocaust was real and can be proved so by many methods. To begin, there is the fact that one can tour several concentration camps and/or extermination camps such as Auschwitz and Dachau. You can also visit the site where the Van Daan and Frank families hid from the Nazis. (http://m.annefrank.org...==) Also, I may point to the fact that six million people of the same nationality and/or religion do not disappear. If it where a Jewish Rapture, why did American Jews not disappear?" Upon the liberation of Concentration Camps, records where found that proved the crimes of the Holocaust had been committed. Thousands of documents where found that had been written by the German officials themselves. (http://www.ushmm.org...) Yet another proof was that of the testimonies of Holocaust survivors. (http://www.ushmm.org...) There are also photos and videos of liberation that show the camps and survivors. (http://www.ushmm.org...)." In conclusion, the holocaust was real, and it was not a hoax.
Which series is better, Harry potter or Divergent? (HP is Pro, Divergent is Con)

Harry Potter spans over a far greater range of story genre's and in size. It gives far more character development and back story and allows readers to easily feel like they are in the wizarding world themselves. It is far more extensive in details and realisticness than Divergent as well as key story elements that just didn't show up very well in the divergent trilogy.
Which series is better, Harry potter or Divergent? (HP is Pro, Divergent is Con)

Harry Potter is a more child friendly series and also on top of this, it is longer so it can be enjoyed for far longer. As well as this, Harry Potter is a true work of the imagination instead of a fan-service trilogy. It is more constant and consistent in story plot and character perspective(point of view). Characters are more bond-able and relate-able as well as captivating and alluring. The series truly is full of surprises and brings out the true colors of characters and readers alike.
Which series is better, Harry potter or Divergent? (HP is Pro, Divergent is Con)

Harry Potter brings out emotions not only in children, but adults to. It truly is deep with light touches of comedy to keep the story going without dragging on. The deaths were heart wrenching ( example: Sirius Black) and the wins brought great joy (example: Harry winning his first quidditch match) It is a very enveloping story that touches the hearts and rains down the tears of all readers.
Which series is better, Harry potter or Divergent? (HP is Pro, Divergent is Con)

Divergent is more about the real world, rather than the fantasies of magic and wands, there is still fiction, but It is more fictional and possible in the real world. Divergent brings out and displays the characteristics and traits of people - Dauntless courage, Erudite smartness, Amity compassion, Candor Honesty, Abnegation selflessness. It takes more thought to come up with something deep like that, rather than the fantasies of Harry Potter
The Christian God exists (11)

How can you make a debate entitled "The Christian God exists" and then in your argument say "The Christian God has nothing to do with this debate". I'm sure a lot of voters who care nothing about objectivity will award you a win for better argument and things like that, but the truth of the matter is you are putting up no argument at all. You are trying to say their is nothing to argue about, so why did you make the debate in the first place. Don't worry, I won't accept this challenge again, I can see it's a waste of time with you. The Burden on Proof is still on you to prove that the fire of Hell is not real and it is not hot. Again, no matter how long you spend trying to prove Hell is not real, you will find out you were wrong is you do not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who died in your place to pay for your sins so you can be saved now from paying in Hell which you are condemned by your sin to do. He rose from the grave, God wants you to believe on Him and receive Him as the Saviour and be forgiven through faith in His blood and be saved from hell. God wants you to be relieved from the burden of proof, but you are fighting against God in favor of your own sin and you are going to lose if you don't surrender to God before your death is finalized. The pleasures of sin and stroking your pride lifting yourself up against God are not worth the torments of eternal damnation in Hell.I will see you later. If you don't get saved before I see you, I will be behind the Judgement seat of Christ when you are pulled up from Hell to receive your final judgement, where your every word, thought, imagination, and deed will be accounted for, before being cast away into the Lake of Fire where all sinners will be forever separated from God's cleaned out creation and only the smoke of their torments will rise forever.(p.s. I still think that flying spaghetti monster is a homosexual invention. That's some puky pasta you are playing with, beware of Gay Related Immuno Deficiency syndrome (GRID, name changed to AIDS shortly after the disease was identified to avoid offending the flying spaghetti noodler)How much spaghetti have you eaten? You can experience cleansing from God no matter how dirty the spaghetti was.
The Christian God exists (11)

The flying spaghetti monster has nothing to do with this debate. The flying spaghetti monster is not God and you know it. If there were a flying spaghetti monster, it would be a created thing. God created all things and you know it, you just don't want to bow to God.That pile of spaghetti you dropped was organized strands before you dropped them. Who organized it? Your mother?The flying spaghetti monster is more likely an invention of a homosexual public school teacher who likes to joke about touching things with his noodly appendage. How did you learn to be so perverted at such a young age if some perverted public school teacher did not shove it down your throat? Maybe you have been eating too much spaghetti and your brain is becoming noodly.Where did the Higgs Boson particle come from? Did God make it or was it an invention of the same perverted mind that spit out the flying spaghetti monster?You cannot explain creation, the universe, without God. Pretending you have no evidence that God is there will not prevent you from falling under God's Judgement. If I were you, I would start listening to God and stop listening to people who think touching you with noodly appendage is funny. That's some sick stuff. There are good reasons for the Bible saying homosexuality is an abomination. Your flying spaghetti monster should make you puke, not laugh.The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.Where did the higgs boson particle come from?The higgs boson particle discovery is the latest depth of discovery of God's handiwork.Creation is evidence of God the Creator. If I say my cat created everything, that is the same as saying the flying spaghetti homo created everything; you know it's a joke and you would not bother asking me to prove it true. If I say God created everything, you say it cannot be proven but you know it's not a joke. It's a truth you do not want to accept, so you make childish arguments of a homosexual noodly thing you laugh at imaginations of being touched by. Why is it so important that you argue there is no God? Now I am moving from the cosmological argument into the ontological argument. God proves Himself in that He put it in you and in every other person that they know God is God. God proves Himself in the handiwork of His Creation. Now I have put up two arguments showing God is there. You have put up nothing to refute him because the only thing you really have to refute God is your own willful ignorance. I cannot provide proof of God because you will not accept the proof God has given you of Himself. God cannot prove Himself to you if you refuse to acknowledge that He is there. The case is not closed until your death is finalized. Your mind is closed to God and you are running out of time. Your case will be closed soon, and God's Judgement will be against you if you do not first find His mercy. If you are not saved from Hell, you are lost to it, and you will go on forever saying God is not there.
The Christian God exists (11)

Pro has asked me to come up with an explanation for life without the Christian god, which is what I shall do.The flying spaghetti monster (Parmesan be upon him) is our lord and savior. There is absolutely no way that he couldn't have designed the universe. Look around you! My friend Gooeld spotted this egg with an uncanny likeness to the FSM. Strong evidence of the FSM’s presence for sure, but I think it’s hasty to refer to this as Rapture. Perhaps He is there for protection? Have any Easterners felt the Touch of His Noodly Appendage? Physicists at CERN say they’ve found the Higgs Boson. Not surprising – illustrations of the “God Particle” closely resemble the FSM. Below are two good articles about the discovery. Scientists seem to keeping a lid on the FSM connection, for now. Smart. Engadget — CERN confirms existence of new particle consistent with Higgs boson/ NYTimes — A new particle could be Physicist’s holy graile [Illustration is from Engadget’s article] In a drunken stupor, I accidentally dropped an open box of spaghetti and it landed in this form on my stove. Random accident or evidence of the FSM’s influence over all things? On my last vacation on Corsica, I managed to take a photo of an ancient cave painting. The tour guide told us the paintings are dated back to 22.000 – 23.000 BC. Let this be a sign to all who doubt the existence of the noodly one, depicted here giving blessing to humans, deer and what seem to be flying penguins. And let those who dare call this photoshopped see the errors of their minds and eat more pasta.All this and more evidence found here: http://www.venganza.org...Clearly shows how the flying spaghetti monster fine-tuned this Earth with his noodly appendages. I have provided more evidence for the FSM than my opponent has for the christian god. Clearly we can see which is more likely.All of this creation is evidence of a creator. Open your eyes, LMGIG, and taste the marinara.
The Christian God exists (11)

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real. The Christian god is the god as described by Jesus and the Bible. Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate. You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments. This debate is not about providing definitive proof either way, but more providing valid evidence that the Christian god exists. You must have completed five debates to accept this. I await my opponent's arguments.