BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bill O'Reilly is a completely biased and often times false news commentater

Pro has only proven that Bill-O likes to yell and scream a lot. This is not bias. Pro has also shown numerous clips of Bill-O debating people with opposing viewpoints, which supports my argument. If Bill-O was biased, he would only interview people with the same viewpoints, which is obviously not true. My opponent has defined "bias" but has failed to define "completely" or "often". -completely - to a complete degree or to the full or entire extent . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... -often - frequently . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... I would like to remind my opponent that he bears a tremendous burden of proof. Pro bears a tremendous burden of proof because he has to prove that Bill O'Reilly is a completely (100%) biased and often (frequently/more times than not) times false news commentator. I am greatly curious to see how Pro proves that Bill-O is 100% biased and frequently false.
Bill O'Reilly is a completely biased and often times false news commentater

Hi id like to debate Bill O'Rielly as bieng a biased news commentater who doesnt care about learning facts just about getting his opinion out. Many people view his news show believe they are actually getting facts and learning, but in reality they are watching false and biased news from a one sided man who wants everyone to see it his way. Such can be sited here: http://www.youtube.com... this is Bill O'Rielly, where most shows ask and learn from theier guests Bill is attacking and yelling at his oponant. In This video he discusses with Mccain his views, not asking Mccain his views but instead asking him how he will deal with helping his views: http://www.youtube.com.... Heres O'reilly screaming at a son of a victem of 911 forcing his views on the kid, telling him to shut up, cutting his mic, telling him hes insulting his dad because hes against war and bush, and in the follow up O'Reilly changes what he said to make him out to be a conspiracy theorist: http://www.youtube.com... And finally he argues and later screams at a U.S. war veteran for bieng against the war on Iraq, a possibe on on iran, andetc. He even calls her unpatriotic despit her 29 year service and him never serving in the army and when he cant win he cuts her mic off:http://www.youtube.com.... Here is kieth olberman proving some of his statements false that O'Reilly still claims true to this day:http://www.youtube.com.... Cutting peoples mics off, sreaming and arguing to one side, and attacking guests clearly can prove he swings to a side. He isnt looking for fact just trying to make himself look right by any means neccisary even though there is many occasions of him bieng incorrect. I have only listed a few of the many occasions as i do not have the time to list them all. Here is the definition of bias http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice. a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment. b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice. I Challenge some one to dispute his obvious bias by attempting to show me him listening to a guest with a different view then his, not attacking that guest, not trying to prove them wrong just questioning them, and then verbally making a point that can prove O'Reilly does not match my listed definition.
Is wikipedia a good source of information

I Criteria'sII Burden of Responsibility III Debate Round Structure I Criteria’s. Criteria’s for a good source are as follows: Does it have all critical information covered thoroughly? Does it present the information as objectively as much as possible? Are the sources reliable? Are bias kept at a minimum? For this debate, we are going to use the English wikipedia.http://www.wikipedia.org...II Burden of Responsibility Pro-Will explain why wikipedia is a good source of informationCon-Will explain why wikipedia is not a good source of informationIII Debate Round Structure Round 1-AcceptanceRound 2-Arguments Round 3-Counterarguments/ RebuttalRound 4-Closing Arguments I look forward to hearing from the other side. Happy debating.
Is wikipedia a good source of information

Main Argument 1 Anyone can edit the information Anyone can go in an post any information. Because of open edit’s, Wikipedia is prone to misinformation. Most of those edits are from anonymous users. In addition, courts have ruled wikipedia as unreliable. One such example was a court in Texas. That court ruled Wikipedia entries as being “Inherently Unreliable [1]. ” Among the reasons cited in the ruling, anyone anonymously can edit. Main Argument 2 Wikipedia does not always cite sources for their articles There are several articles with unverified, missing links, or uncited sources. Even wikipedia admits this problem. “Another problem with a lot of content on Wikipedia is that many contributors do not cite their sources — something that makes it hard for the reader to judge the credibility of what is written [2]. ” One example of an article with plenty of uncited sources on Wikipedia is about Steel-string acoustic guitars. In that article there is only one source cited [3]. Main Argument 3 Wikipedia is biased There is gender bias on wikipedia. According to a study done by the University of Minnesota, only 9% of the editors were female [4]. The study examined the profile of 110000 editors from 2005 to January 2011. In addition, many of those female editors leave wikipedia. This is also backed up by a survey done by the wikimedia foundation back in 2009[5]. In addition, there have been some cases of articles being edited in the person’s favor [5]. Furthermore, those cases include employees editing information about their colleagues. Main Argument 4 Difficult to find the credentionals of authors Most of the editors and authors on wikipedia are anonymous, and as a result, it is difficult to find their credentials [5]. In addition, many of them do not reveal information. A key element to remember when examing information on the internet is too determines the author credentials. An anonymous site like wikipedia cannot be relayed on for those reasons. Thank you for reading my arguments. I look forward to hearing the other side’s view. Sources 1. . http://law.marquette.edu... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www1.umn.edu... 5. . http://www.findingdulcinea.com...
EU - Visions for a Brighter Future

To end my argument I would fundamentally like to state that I agree with my opponents view that the world does belong to every nation however when looking at what is best for the world it is best if the biggest and most powerful nations of the world make the most decisions for us. It is illogical to state that all nations should have a say in the way the world works, as surely those nations which are most developed should be able to enrich the rest of the world and allow other nations to experience the riches they hold, through the ideas they preach, while less developed nations views although important, are no were near as influential as that of the most powerful nations on the planet. Therefore due to these I continue to back up my assertion that only through the control of the major G8 nations can the world continue to prosper and this also translates with regard to the EU, which should be controlled by the top 5 economic, nations within Europe. I thank everyone for reading my argument, and look forward to the voting procedure.
EU - Visions for a Brighter Future

Let people read it and decide for themselves. First of all I would like to notice, that the opinion of my opponent does not take in account the latest developments and trends in the world and the world's politics, I think. Secondly, my opponent talks about a multipolar system of ruling of the world. But in fact we have in the moment unipolar system mostly with the supreme control of USA, and G8 ruling the world would also create a unipolar system. Third, I think that a multipolar system can be created by balancing the world powers by more international unions like EU, NAU< South American Union, African Union an so fort. I think the world is heading to there. As a consequence a multipolar system will create mutual respect - military, economic, social and political between the different parts of the world and in that way avoid the confrontation, like my opponent said, during the Cold war, with a bipolar world system. Fourth, I would like to say that the world faces many problems today like the air pollution and environmental damage, which is mostly a result of the economic activity of the economic superpowers. Anyway these problem could be solved only during international cooperation based on the free will, but not on the forcible arrangements of the superpowers like G8 countries. As last I would like to say that the world exists not only in the G8 countries, but in all other countries and the people who live there are not a flock of sheep to listen to the powerful G8 countries to order them what to happen. Soon or later the peoples unrespect with system will escalate and create wars and world disorder - just like happens with the terrorism. My opponent talks about a unipolar system which soon or later will collapse or change itself into dictatorship. Besides the world does not belong to the most powerful G8 countries but to all the humans and the most active and strongest players should take their responsibility to the rest of the world. AS THE OTHER COUNTRIES SHOULD TAKE THEIR, which could not happen under dictatorship and without free and mutual and respectful cooperation. Besides USA is not a single state, but a federal state with about fifty states which are united. There was fought only one single war in Europe hundreds. SO WHEN THE MODEL WORKED FOR THE USA, IT COULD AND SHOULD WORK FOR THE EU - RESPECTIVELY EUROPE TOO. I would like to put an end to that discussion, and invite anybody to reason for him/herself. WE LIVE IN THE 21-ST CENTURY - THE FUTURE COULD BE BRIGHT FOR EUROPE AND THE WORLD ONLY THROUGH MUTUAL AND RESPECTFUL COOPERATION. Obviously my opponent is very conservative and only wants to preserve the status quo, which does not solve the problems and prevents the right decisions and progress to be made. This is the usual case when you look back in the history of mankind and it's biggest mistake. Thank you very much for the honest and worthy discussion.
EU - Visions for a Brighter Future

I would like it to be clear to my opponent, that I am not wishing to be disrespectful to his views, I just am determined to set out why I feel they are inherently wrong. When looking at the question my opponent poses to me with how I view the future of Europe and world politics as a whole, it must be noted that in my opinion I feel a multipolarity system of governance will dominate the region and the world. By this I will argue that fundamentally only big successful economic countries should decide Europe's fate, countries of which also have sizeable militaries. This is true when looking at nations such as France, UK,Germany,Italy and Spain. I feel these nations should fundamentally be in control of the region, as these large nations have similar gains in preserving peace in the region. I also feel that the future of the world, should also be governed by the world's G8 nations. I argue this point, as In my opinion organisations that take the opinions of small nations seriously, are not seeing the bigger picture, as in the world we live in today it is not the problems of the smaller nations such as San Marino and Tuvalu that matter, it is the problems that affect the biggest nations such as China,Brazil India and other nations such as The United States. Therefore due to these points outlined, one can argue that fundamentally the future of world politics should rely on the needs of the major G8 nations, while European politics should rely on the opinions and needs of the massive economic powers in Europe such as the ones outlined in this piece.
EU - Visions for a Brighter Future

With a deep respect to my opponent! Everybody has the right of his/her own thoughts, ideas and viewpoints. I would like to ask my opponent, before further discuss the topic, to answer view questions of mine. First, let you, please be more specific in how do you see the future of Europe and peace on the continent and where does UK fit in that situation? Second how small countries will exist in a world of globalization and political, military and economic unions which will be created anyway? Third and last: How, does my opponent see the future of the world as a whole in 50, 100 and more distant years? Thank you for that productive discussion!
EU - Visions for a Brighter Future

When looking at my opponents views, I have several things I wish to state. He himself cites the British empire as an example of a multinational group or a global organisation, which in his view is how the world should proceed, to promote global Politics. However let us not look at what happened to the British empire, it crumbled in 1914 and led to one of the greatest wars man has ever seen. Fundamentally it must be argued that the organisation of political blocs, such as the European Union, Arab League and NATO leads to hostility and mistrust to arise between nations. If he sees a future where political unions continue to exist between nations as he says a 'China, Russian federation', and a 'North American Union' then this helps to prove my view that this will promote growing hostility to arise between these two groups yet again as it will separate the world into a two tier system China and Russia VS the North American union which one can argue is similar tot that of the Cold war where there was the USSR and The United States competing for dominance. Therefore I promote to my opponent that to argue the view that multinational groups are the future of this planet, is an irrational view , as History has shown us that to isolate countries into groups will lead to conflict to ensue. With regard to my opponents view that British people do not want Europe to succeed, I must argue this is entirely false. We as a nation thoroughly embrace our European allies such as France,Germany Italy and many other European nations. However we do not see the European Union as the main way to improve the cooperation and mutual friendship within Europe as a whole. my opponent also argues that only through the European Union can we achieve a peaceful Europe which in an earlier argument he argues will be the "future for the (sic) europenas and our children". However this idea that the European Union promotes mutual respect is a completely outdated view. Let us not look at how anti-Germanic feeling has slowly grown in Greece in recent years, due to the perceived ideology that Germany are once again colonising all of Europe, however this time through the use of the European Union. Therefore it can be argued that the very notion of the European Union is irrational, as fundamentally larger nations will always control it, which will lead to other nations to be wary and suspicious of them, therefore yet again increasing hostility and mistrust between nations. Due to the points raised, I argue that only through mutual treaties and understandings between countries can Europe really progress as a continent. Thank you.
EU - Visions for a Brighter Future

Well, with all my deepest regard and respect to the British people, I would like to explain some of my ideas and ask some questions to my opponent! First of all, the words I said are not just my words. It is been said by many clever, international and cosmopolitan politics and people. Many of the young Americans believe, and possibly, are right that the future of the world will go through the creation of such international political unions. Even more the British Empire from the past was some form of such an organization - it was not national - it was multinational empire. The future of the world will go in that way regardless weather the British people or some other nation wants it. It is a political reality. I would also like to ask my opponent, how would Britain compete with raising powers as China, Russian Federation, which even wants to create the Euro- Asian Union. How UK will compete economically with a future Euro-Asian Union, which is set to become reality? How will UK survive military against it? The USA, Canada and Mexico even want to create the North American Union - NAU! Further I would like to ask, how does my opponent, would explain the fact that a poll amid the British firms and companies confirmed their intentions and wishes to stay in the united market, which the EU created and take all the benefits of it? How could British people, obviously so intelligent and educated, want only the benefits from the EU and when it comes to the question to give their equal share and enthusiasm in it complain that the EU interferes in their domestic political affairs? If you want to be part of the EU, be a fair member, with all the benefits, limitations and burdens, if not you can leave it. Why you want to instill chaos and despair over that so promising for the rest of EU project? France and Germany seems to want the EU to succeed. I would also like to ask the British people why the UK never regarded as part of Europe, which in fact it is and always was, but always viewed itself some kind separated from Europe? With regard to the Turkish people, I would also to mention that once upon the time Christian Europe could not stop the invasion of the Ottoman Empire, and they reached the gates of Vienna, only because Europe was split in small and not united countries, but not of military weakness, which if united could stop that aggression. There was a risk for the entire continent to fall under Ottoman rule, which was a rising military power at the time? The Ottoman Empire was back warded in cultural respect to the European nations it conquered, like Byzantium Empire, Bulgarian Kingdom, Serbian Kingdom and especially Austria, but used brute force. Should these lessons be repeated for Europe? I will continue to give my explanations of the questions of my opponent, but first let me hear the respective comments on the last my arguments! Thank you!
EU - Visions for a Brighter Future

United we are not. It is impracticable to suggest that all nations should adopt a similar foreign policy. As how can a nation such as Poland have the same international dilemmas as the United Kingdom ? Nations in themselves are the preservers of world order, not international organisations. The idea that the world could be safer through creating the EU, as well as my opponent's idea of economic groups seems counter intuitive to the notion of peace. This is because the creation of groups which certain nations join and certain nations do not, ultimately lead to hostility to increase This is evident when looking at how groups throughout history have increased hostility such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact. It can also be argued that the idea that the European Union should control the universal rights of citizens seem unfair and almost imperialist. Why should one nation not be able to govern itself, such as the United Kingdom, which is deeply angry over the EU'S involvement with regard to British trials, which the European Union has insisted on interfering with. The EU therefore fundamentally is wholly unstable and ludicrous to adopt, as even though the Utopian theory of all nations working together to secure a better future sound nice, it is in fact a grand delusion. This can be shown further as in global politics, some nations are more powerful than others, and making these nations abide to the same rules as smaller less nations, with regard to their economies, their politics and their militaries is completely impracticable. How can rules that apply to nations such as Luxembourg be equally as applicable to larger nations such as Germany ? with a bigger population and different problems and cultures ? Due to these points raised I continue to persist that the EU is inherently flawed
EU - Visions for a Brighter Future

Before to give more arguments I would like you, please, to read this my thoughts: United Federative EU would give more strength and power to the individual country-members and individual citizens United Federative EU would give more strength and power to the individual country-members and individual citizens in world driven by ever rising economic competition as a consequence of the processes of international and world globalization. The next political development of the world will be in creating economical and political block as USA, BRIC, South American Union and African Union etc. It is in the best interests of every European country to be a member of the EU, because in that way it will have the support of bigger political entity and united market. Next EU must have a common army as the USA, with its military industry. So it will not be necessary to buy foreign military equipment. A common civil legislation guaranteeing the universal rights of every EU-citizen should be made. A common research and innovation agencies should be created to boost scientific breakthroughs and in that way economy of the EU. Common foreign policy should be created. Regarding the cultures of the different countries- they should be protected, because they are part of the wealth of the EU. The language barriers between the different countries will be overcome creating universal and portable devices - which will boost cultural and economic interactions between the individuals of the different countries in EU. THE MOST IMPORATANT LESSON FOR EVERY CITZEN OF EU - Europe should come from the history of Europe- it is full with hatred and blood and national intolerance - Europe must learn from it and never repeat it. New future, politics and European culture of tolerance should be created. UNITED WE, THE EUROPEANS WILL STAY, SEPARATED WE WILL FALL and eventually repeat the massacres from the past. EVERY CITIZEN OF THE EU SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT REALITIES before placing his\her short seeing egoism in front of everything else. THE EU IS THE FUTURE FOR THE EUROPENAS AND OUR CHILDREN.
EU - Visions for a Brighter Future

The notion that the EU presents a brighter future for the nations of Europe seems thoroughly misguided. The EU itself is fundamentally flawed, as not only does it attempt to take the sovereignty of nations and its ideas and traditions and treat them as the same, but it is also is controlled really by the 'big players' such as Germany and France. The European Union is also flawed economically due to the fact that it relies on a complex interdependence between nations. The effect of this complex economic interdependence can be seen when looking at the damage caused by Greece and Ireland having to be bailed out by Germany, and therefore the EU can not work economically as it relies on all nations to succeed in a ever growingly competitive international economy, which sometimes nations can not live up to.
EU - Visions for a Brighter Future

It is obviously clear to very good minded and educated European citizen that EU should stay forever and that EU should make closer integration and move in the direction of the political system of USA - federative state with 50 states within it. I suggest that everybody who is willing to participate to make suggestions, visions, comments and ideas for how to create a stronger and wealthier EU, which will give us and our children a brighter future. Let place EU - Europe, where it has the potential to be, instead of destroying it and ourselves, like in the past history of Europe.