BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Falkland Islands should be given to Argentina.

Good luck. This is my opening statement as to why the Falkland Islands do not belong to Argentina.1. The people of the Falkland Islands want to be BritishIn 2013, the Falkland Islands had a referendum on their sovereignty, for which I have made a pie chart. It looks like this. That's 1514 votes to stay in the UK. About 92% of the island's population voted to remain a British Overseas Territory. The Argentinean vote is barely visible on the graph. 3 people voted to join Argentina. 0.2% of the vote. Although those three people have to be respected, they're completely outnumbered by the rest of the inhabitants of the island. It is clear, they want to be British.2. The Islands were British before Argentina existed as a countryThe first independent nation with Buenos Aires in the capital was the United Provinces of the River Plate, which became independent from Spain in 1810. There were British colonies on the Falkland Islands from 1765, a good 45 years before Spain had given up control over Argentina [2]. Although the British didn't inhabit the islands first, the French (who had the first settlement for 3 years) no longer claim that the islands belong to them. This means that the oldest owners who still claim for the islands should own the islands.3. International treatiesThe Arana-Southern Treaty, which was signed by both Argentina and the United Kingdom, is a treaty signed in 1850 where Argentina agreed to stop their claims to the Falkland Islands, and in return, the United Kingdom and France would begin trading with Argentina again, and the goods that Argentina received from trading with European nations allowed their country to prosper in the future [3].Also, the Lisbon Treaty agrees that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain, as it ratifies the status of all overseas territories that belong to EU nations (the Azores of Spain, the Faroe Islands of Denmark etc.). [4]Argentina is breaking two international treaties every time it officially claims that the Falkland Islands belong to them. It seems that they feel the need to break international law just so they can claim the natural resources that are in the region.Thank you, and I look forward to reading pro's arguments.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.theguardian.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wikipedia has an extreme liberal bias

Yeah, that is reasonable, and I know that the founder is a liberal. (Sorry about the second forfeited round, I wasn't on) As well as this, I am also saying many of the admins are, as the founder likely handpicked the beginning admins and down the trail it ended up majorly liberal. Also keep in mind many people on the internet are young and liberal, as many older generational people do not frequent the internet other than maybe shopping, keeping the demographics of many sites liberal.
Wikipedia has an extreme liberal bias

Hello Dogtonne, my name is minddrag and thank you for posing this interesting and worthy debate. The resolution as I understand it is that Wikipedia has an extreme liberal bias. Assuming that Wikipedia and liberal are all defined how I assum, and they rightfully should be defined, then with further ado (because we can all agree we've had too much ado) I will begin my side of the debate. My main point (and I will start off with only 1 rebuttal and one point for the beginning) is that Wikipedia cannot be an extreme liberal bias because it is written by thousands of people, each with different political and moral views. How if Wikipedia is written by people with conservative, communist, socialist and liberal views can you say that it is just one belief? This is absolutely absurd. To rebut my opponents point I would like to point out that those pages, concerning gender and sexuality are mostly pro liberal topics and that it would be extremely likely that those pages were looked at and edited more by people who have a liberal bias then any other. If you looked at a pro conservative issue, I'm sure that you will find some pro conservative views. Lastly, even though the founder of Wikipedia, easily arguable as a liberal founded Wikipedia, he did not fully write all, or even close to the 5 million 75 thousand articles on Wikipedia, so I don't think the founders bias even matters in this argument. Unless you mean to say that the founder handpicked all of the writers editors and employees on Wikipedia and made sure they were all liberal who had an extreme liberal view. It is for these reasons that I believe that this resolution BIRT Wikipedia has an extreme Liberal bias, must and will fall. Thank you and I look forward to your argument.
Wikipedia has an extreme liberal bias

I believe Wikipedia has an extreme liberal bias. With pages like "trigender" "cis" and so on, that have an extreme amount of argument for each term being reasonable, without many real links, makes me believe Wikipedia has an extreme amount of liberals on it. It was even founded by someone who is probably liberal, as he is an atheist, and his son is agnostic. This is coming from an atheist. My political party is somewhere in between liberal and conservative, so I believe there needs to be more actual evidence for information on wikipedia and there needs to be a balance between political extremes.
The U.S. should leverage its hard power against Iran, in order to stop Iran nuclear capabilities.

sorry, i'm on vacation. So if you would like to win the debate you may. Springfield? Illinois? or Missouri? i am in Missouri!. Merry Christmas.!! Sorry I can't debate any further. I have friends that may debate the same topic if you re post it, I'll have my friends have a go. they say your name is intimidating :) Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year!:):):)
The U.S. should leverage its hard power against Iran, in order to stop Iran nuclear capabilities.

Well, I guess you still have another round to present yourself, and so therefore I won't say anything like "he forfeited all the points, I should win right now", but I do think it is important to note that the arguments should speak for themselves. I beleive that in using just the arguments presented in the debate (using none from outside research on the voters part) that I should win this debate. However, I won't hold anything against him for not having the time to respond during holidays (which I'm sure is the case). Anyway, happy holidays from Springfield!
The U.S. should leverage its hard power against Iran, in order to stop Iran nuclear capabilities.

Going into hard power against Iran simply means the declaration of another war in the Middle East. Even with negotiations, which is currently failing due to the United States diplomacy, there is no guarantee that Iran will halt its nuclear capabilities. First of all, Iran has one known nuclear testing site that is used, under NATO and EU's management, only for civilian power. Iran will never truly stop its nuclear programs and to leverage hard power upon Iran and its programs is an act of aggression defined by the United States. Also, your point that Iran will have down-looks upon Americanism is also irrelevant. The only non-American situations are from extremists. Continuing with the extremist: I ask: Do you know the type of government Iran is under, and who the main head of the government is? If you do not know either of those, then it is obvious you are uneducated on the fact that Iran will never have a non-biased negotiation or diplomatic cross fire with the United States. Diplomacy will never change the views from the public, instead it often times creates aggression. Changing the diplomacy of Iran or attempting to strengthen the failed U.S. stand point with Iran is failure. The only way to manage this problem is to regulate Iran's nuclear programs, not to prevent anything. Now, while I say that U.S. diplomacy is failure, you must realize what President Bush has done to negotiate with Iran: One November 23 of this year, President Bush tried to revive the Middle east peace process with a conference in Annapolis, Maryland. Israeli and Palestinian envoys were invited. However, no Iranian members were included. This conference was on the urgency to make progress on the extremists backed by Iran. Unless you can specifically tell me when in the George W. Bush' s presidency that the U.S. has successfully with all guarantees that Iran will stop its nuclear testing programs, you must forfeit this point. Now guaranteeing that Iran will have no nuclear programs is highly doubtful. First of all, there are secret testing sites. Now you may bring up the most recent NIE, but it states directly in it: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons" Now with the option to keep nuclear weapons and a government that, under its constitution, supports any extremist groups such as Hezbollah, there is no choice but to attack Iran. Based on all of this information and points, the public must know that the United States should not leverage its hard power against Iran, in order to stop Iran nuclear capabilities.
The U.S. should leverage its hard power against Iran, in order to stop Iran nuclear capabilities.

First off, let me clarify what I mean. It is my belief that we should leverage our hard power against Iran, in order to prevent them from furthering their nuclear capabilities. To explain a little, I think that attacking Iran would be foolish, and result in little more than angering their people and creating even more of a vaccuum towards the ever growing anti-Americanism views growing oh so prevalent in the Middle East. What I really mean by leveraging our hard power against Iran, is that we should engage in aggresive diplomatic talks with Iran, and demand that we get a guarentee that they will not go nuclear. We need to issue an ultimatum: either give us what we want, or face our wrath. If we leverage hard power against Iran now, we potentially save many many people. As the saying goes, it's better to be safe than sorry, and it is widely acknowledged that Iran, at the very least, has the technology to go nuclear. Action is extremely relevent because of the Middle East's history of nuclear proliferation, and their extremely undiplomatic negotiating. If we do something against Iran, we risk seeing an increase in the quality of Terrorism that we heretoforth haven't even dreamed of. Let me explain: If Iran proliferates, than it is likely that terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weapons. This, suffice to say, would be terrible for America, as it is the main target for terrorist groups. Not only this, but terrorists aren't the only potential nuclear threat to the U.S. We also have to deal with the fact that Iran isn't exactly in love with us, and may very well attack us. The real question in this debate is: "Are there any other options outside of hard power?". Well, if there was any chance of Soft Power working, than I would be all for it. Unfortunately, U.S. soft power is a thing of the past, specifically in the Middle East region, and therefore has no real way of working. One can't be expected to win a gun fight with no ammo, metaphorically speaking of course. There is simply no way that the extremist leaders of Iran will actually be willing to do what we need them to do, unless of course we leverage our military resources against them. This leaves the only option being the aformentioned propping up of hard power and using it as a metaphorical shield, eschewing Iran from nuclear capability. We have a moral and diplomatic duty to not only our citizens, but the denizens of the world as well, to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, that will inevitably lead to increased tensions not only in their region, but throughout the nuclear community as well.
Pizza is good

Your mom is a stupid stupid girl she thinks she knows about pizza but she dosen't mom come back im really lonley help me ive been shot?? do any of you know or have medical training cuz daddyu iss on floor dead? or are we all dead or is it just a dream or is a dream reality. ???/jibdi34rnwelr;kgnjfsko dfmghk'lhcnvdf,vhjzxdm.fg lsduycb war,.bzdck.,mears 79zd8bn /,dfvhSDP(Fm, sglhfy mc
Pizza is good

What in Davy Jones" locker did ye just bark at me, ye scurvy bilgerat? I"ll have ye know I be the meanest cutthroat on the seven seas, and I"ve led numerous raids on fishing villages, and raped over 300 wenches. I be trained in hit-and-run pillaging and be the deadliest with a pistol of all the captains on the high seas. Ye be nothing to me but another source o" swag. I"ll have yer guts for garters and keel haul ye like never been done before, hear me true. You think ye can hide behind your newfangled computing device? Think twice on that, scallywag. As we parley I be contacting my secret network o" pirates across the sea and yer port is being tracked right now so ye better prepare for the typhoon, weevil. The kind o" monsoon that"ll wipe ye off the map. You"re sharkbait, fool. I can sail anywhere, in any waters, and can kill ye in o"er seven hundred ways, and that be just with me hook and fist. Not only do I be top o" the line with a cutlass, but I have an entire pirate fleet at my beck and call and I"ll damned sure use it all to wipe yer arse off o" the world, ye dog. If only ye had had the foresight to know what devilish wrath your jibe was about to incur, ye might have belayed the comment. But ye couldn"t, ye didn"t, and now ye"ll pay the ultimate toll, you buffoon. I"ll poop fury all over ye and ye"ll drown in the depths o" it. You"re fish food now. Also i want a big`ol pizza pie in my eyelash
Safe legal choice to have an abortion

1. The cut-off point is *AT* 20 weeks, before the fetus is viable and can feel pain. 2. Abortions are still going to happen, except they won't be happening safely, which could take *TWO* lives instead of one (or kill one and injure the other). We don't make laws based on potential, by the way. The potential argument swings both ways--the fetus you aborted could be a serial rapist or create a master genocide plan. If we made laws based on potential, low-income uneducated minority folks would be thrown in jail by default because they're the demographic most likely to commit crimes. It would be absurd to answer "Should I have kids someday?" with "You must! So-and-So ended up to be a wonderful person, and their mother doubted whether to have kids!" So why does that argument become reasonable in the context of abortion? 3. Often "free" methods of abortion are unsafe. Medical and surgical abortion are 14 times safer than pregnancy. That's why I believe it should be kept legal. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Safe legal choice to have an abortion

Thanks about that. - Fetuses cannot feel and do not have a sense of mortal danger. Fetus can feel pain around 20 weeks. You are pregnet for 9 months. So that fetus could of lived but early on it its killed -Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, But it sure will save a lot childrens lives. Like say that fetus you aborted was the doctor that could cure cancer or ends proverty in 3rd world countries Abortion occurs in natureHumans will spend will tons of money to have surgery to kill the fetus and get it removed. Other animals will just crush it with a rock for FREE!
Safe legal choice to have an abortion

OMG so sorry for forfeiting that last round!Here are the main things:-Bodily autonomy is the most important argument because it’s bulletproof, really. Bodily autonomy is an unwritten law that says no one can use your body without your consent, which is why (most) humans automatically understand why rape is wrong and why you have to be an organ donor in life for your organs to be taken after your death. Fetuses do not have bodily autonomy because they are not autonomous. You may try to derail at this point and accuse me of ableism, because many disabled people are dependent on others. However, disabled people are still autonomous, because they don’t live inside the body of another person and suck up their nutrients, and unlike fetuses, they are sentient. If abortion is illegal, dead people will officially have more rights than pregnant people (because a dead person’s organs can’t be used if they aren’t a consenting organ donor).-Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, but make it less safe. As high as 1.2 million people died attempting unsafe and illegal abortions between 1880 and 1973, and thousands more were injured[x]. Abortions are going to happen no matter what, so if you really care about pregnant people, you had better simmer down and let abortion be.-Right to life does not trump everything else. If you claim it does, why haven’t you been forced to donate one of your kidneys, a few lung lobes, bone marrow, blood, liver pieces, etc., to save lives because everyone deserves to live more than each person deserves rights over their own body, right? You may support "equality" for unborn children, but the truth is they're already equal--no born person has the right to infringe on someone else's bodily autonomy.- Fetuses cannot feel and do not have a sense of mortal danger. There are no detectable brain waves that would translate to pain or fear until 28 weeks. An abortion after 28 weeks only happens under special circumstances, and the fetus is euthanized before a 3rd-trimester abortion, meaning it feels none of the abortion. [Source: http://discovermagazine.com...;] That means that more suffering is involved in a straining forced nine-month pregnancy, painful birth, and growing up unwanted than the suffering involved in an abortion- Abortion occurs in nature. When a nonhuman animal is pregnant at a bad time, they will electively abort. Some animals eat poisonous plants, and some even walk through spaces too small for them to crush the fetus. All so they won’t give birth to a baby they can’t feed. Elective abortion is a maternal instinct. Some anti-choicers vocally wonder why people can have abortions, saying it conflicts with maternal instincts, but, if you look at nonhuman animals and why they abort, you see that abortion is maternal instinct, to save a child from being born unwanted/very sick.- Even if you will not let the idea go that abortion is murder, it’s justifiable homicide, self-defense. Having something inside of you that you don’t want in there is a medical urgency.When that thing is violating your bodily autonomy, it is self-defense to kill it.
Sugar cookies are better than chocolate chip cookies.

"So what?" Sugar cookies were like the basis of cookies today. Although chocolate chip cookies did not come directly from them, they came from the recipe indirectly. Therefore, although it does not make them better, they are the base of all the different types of cookies we have today. It is like saying that today's big screen T.V. is better than the small radios that America used to be accustomed to. Although, the better one is all in a person's opinion, the big screen TV's would not be possible if it weren't for the small radios. "It is only an opinion of the taste of "gross soybean or even diabetic" True, but again people do not eat cookies for health reasons. They eat them for pure enjoyment. So, with the being said, don't you believe that a person would prefer a real cookie instead of one with soybeans instead of real chocolate chips. As I stated before, sugar cookies have natural health benefits. This includes fiber. Also, on this website you can compare the nutritional statuses of both cookies. http://www.answers.com... http://www.answers.com... Although the chocolate chip cookies overall less calories than sugar cookies, they have more saturated fat- the bad kind of fat. Both contain the same amount of protein. But let's get off the topic off nutrition, because people eat cookies just to enjoy and not for health reasons. That was just something to show that chocolate chip cookies are not healthier than sugar cookies. Both are pretty much equal in health terms. But, most people who are allergic to chocolate would much rather prefer a real sugar cookie instead of a healthier version of a chocolate chip cookie because again, you do not eat cookies to be healthy. :) So, overall my opponent has pretty much stated that chocolate chip cookies are better because many people like them. Also, you can have soybean replicates for people who are unable to eat the real thing. Sugar cookies: Can be decorated and can be varied as much as you'd like, or not varied at all- it all depends on your mood. Chocolate chip cookies will remain the same. You can have sugar cookies with cinnamon sugar, sprinkles, chocolate swirls, etc. So overall, sugar cookies have more of a variety. People who are allergic to chocolate can eat sugar cookies. Are the basis of types of cookies today. Have health benefit (already listed) even if you are not looking for a "healthy cookie." I do not believe that we should bring the taste of the cookies into our debate, because as my opponent already stated, it is a mere opinion and not fit to be debated. I await your response. :)
Sugar cookies are better than chocolate chip cookies.

I may now argue about what you have stated to be "true." "Although this doesn't make them better, they had created a beginning to all the cookies we have today. Chocolate chip cookies wouldn't exist without sugar cookies." It is true that Sugar cookies came before chocolate chip cookies. So what? It doesn't make them any better. In the link below it states that sugar is what first began the cookie. It also states the entire chocolate chip invention had nothing to do with Sugar Cookies. Instead they were actually thought of after a different cookie recipe. http://whatscookingamerica.net... "Soybean replicants are not as good as the real thing. Like you stated, people like the good old chocolate chip cookies. Don't you believe that the people who are allergic would prefer to eat a sugar cookie rather than a gross soybean or even diabetic ones?" It is only an opinion of the taste of "gross soybean or even diabetic.." It is a preference that those people are able to choose. Saying that "Soybean replicants are not as good as the real thing." is an opinion, not a fact. I cannot say you are right or wrong because you have not given fact that they are better. Many people prefer soybean over other types of food regardless of their allergies or not. "Sugar cookies overall pretty much have less calories and are healthier. Sugar cookies also contain fiber." As do Sugar Cookies and Chocolate Chip cookies both contain fiber. It depends on your recipe. Cookies are not healthy, but mearly a desert made to satisfy humankind. "...they have "natural healthy benefits" Could you please be more specific next time for your turn? Thank you and I am always waiting for your responce. :)