BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ron Paul is the only person that can save the USA

YOU LIE! YOU ARE A LIAR! you are the biggest liar I have ever meet on this website, on a forum, on a debating website, on a computer, on the internet, in the state of texas, in the cuntry, on the planet, in the solar system, in this galaxy, in the known universal, in the unknown universe, in the demintion, in entire reallity, in the year 2011, in all years, in other time lines! ALL YOU DO IS LIAR. Also Obama and ralph nader as liarrs to. You suck. I don't like you. You need to Grow up! You are just a child! GROW UP! Learn some manners. You are trying to turn the site agianst me. You are trying to turn my words where it seems like i am the bad and dumb guy when you are really it. you will never be as smart as me. Also xbox 360 sucks! I wish I was omnipotent so I could run the earth like it really should be. Well I gues syou don't care since liberals are only good at being lazy and doing nothing. That's all liberals do is nothing. Obummer needs to stop doing nothing and do things and stop blaming bush. All liberals are morons! They all lie! LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
Ron Paul is the only person that can save the USA

1. Okay america is going threw trouble right now but unemployment rate isn't at a record high. http://www.bls.gov... The site says the rate is just at 9.1. It is kind of high but remember the great depression. Where the rate was nearly 25 percent? That was the record. 2. Ron Paul views in my opinion are not great. Getting rid of welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and SS would be horrible. Many seniors would have to go back to working, or they wouldn't be able to survive. 3. There are thousands of politicans out there. Saying Ron Paul is the only one that can save the USA is a pretty blank statement.
Ron Paul is the only person that can save the USA

Ok then. 1. The debt, the lies, and the econ. America is in 15 billion in debt and the unemployment rate is at record highs right now. 2. Ron Paul can save it. By lowering the Military budget, privalize health care, getting rid of welfare, and medicaid, medicare, and soical security. 3. Yes Ron Paul is the only honest person out there. He is the only politican that can do this. Also please don't lie in this debt or make my look bad. You tried to turn agianst me the last debate and you made me loss. If you do then I will do what I must.
Ron Paul is the only person that can save the USA

In my opinion you put yourself in a hard debate to win. Your claim is that Ron Paul is the "only" person that can save the USA. You do have 3 things you need to look into. 1. What does the USA need saving from? 2. How can Ron Paul do anything to save it, and what will he do? 3. Is there anyone but Ron Paul that can do it? Show me those 3 things and I say you will have a chance.
The USFG should disallow torture and forgo using it as an interrogation technique.

What is this? Your second argument was 7,500 characters in length. And you refuse to read mine because its the same length? Don't try to make me look bad in the comments-if you're not capable of holding up the debate, then just say so and don't bother wasting my time. I give up on this debate. Either people aren't willing to read more than two sentences, or they're people who don't have an ounce of common sense and will reject what I say on face, without reading or listening to it at all. Was this short enough for you?
The USFG should disallow torture and forgo using it as an interrogation technique.

Exactly as the title states. Please don't accept if you're not willing to debate this all the way through, this is the third time I'm posting this now. I will define torture as extreme anguish of body or mind, and I accept that torture can be both physical and psychological. I view all torture as illegitimate. I would like to debate these tenets: 1. Torture is dehumanizing and degrading. To torture any individual is to declare that their life is worthless and they are merely an object which can be used for a purpose. 2. I will make the preemptive argument that if you claim torture is legitimate, then you must also claim it can and should be used on anyone who is viewed as withholding valuable information. 3. Torture is ineffective and rarely works. Individuals often suffer so much pain and anguish that they will say or do anything to stop the torture from continuing. Those are what I plan to work with throughout this debate, feel free to bring up other points that I haven't. Good luck :)
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

Assume the value criterion of preserving autonomy to be greater than the value of popular sovereignty. 1) He provides no link how popular sovereignty to lead to justice. Merely reflecting the true will of the people does not lead to justice. Rather, preserving autonomy leads to justice by allowing people the freedom to govern themselves and not an ambiguous "true will". 2) He states it is the duty of the government to reflect. Right now, the government is not a legitimate body to protect neither popular sovereignty nor autonomy. Reject his contention one for two reasons. 1) Vigilantism is a self regulating process. Vigilantes and vigilante committees are each striving for the greatest goal: safety. This means that the vigilantes that can provide for the greatest safety are advantaged in this process. 2) In the conditions prescribed by the resolution, due process takes less priority to safety. The immediate concern is the protection of autonomy. Turn his contention 2 to my case for the following reasons 1) Autonomy allows individuals' interpretation of the law rather than an illegitimate government's. If we assume individuals to be for the most part just, then we further take away the legitimacy of government and allow for greater preservation of autonomy. Cross apply my counter against his contention 1 to his contention 3. Also note that criminals must face retribution nevertheless. Turn his contention 4. Look to my contention 2 to see how to reform the government through vigilantism. Reject my opponent's attack on my criterion. He does not address my warrants and he also fails to realize that my shooting of a man takes away his self government. Vigilantes act to protect people's autonomy. Cross apply to extend my contention 1. Self-government and government are not inherently contradictory. Government is needed to protect self-government. It is the basis of free society.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

-This is my first debate on this website. -I am trying out my Negative case for the March/April Lincoln-Douglas topic before I head to districts. -Considering that I am testing out an LD case for an LD topic, I would appreciate it if my opponent knew and debated LD format. Best wishes for a rousing debate and good luck to my future opponent. Adhering to LD format I will allow the Affirmative to have the first word in this debate.
Should Gay Marriage be Legal? (Yes, it is already legal, but should it be or should it be illegal?"

I want you to imagine the perfect someone, whether you have found them or not, they would make you happy right? Hair, what shade is it, how does it part? Eyes, what color are they, how do they make you feel? How about character, humorous, caring, independent or even emotionally strong? Now, unfortunately, that perfect someone, is swiped from you! Not in a sense that someone else loves them, but you can"t be with them. It"s forbidden, similar to a fairytale but it"s heartbreaking, and shakes your world until it"s upside down. Do you think this can happen in the world around us? Of course. This happens to people who love differently, things like large age gaps, different races, and sexual orientation are frowned upon and sometimes discriminated against. In today"s world, all still happen but those who receive the most grief would be those whose sexual orientation is outside the social norms. Specifically referring to those within the gay and lesbian community who are criticized for wanting to have their marriage recognized. Marriage has changed drastically throughout time, but now people think of it as a representation of love and compassion, joining two souls for eternity. Gay marriage also has many benefits to society and our country, so I don't think there is any real reason to ban gay marriage. Marriage is a right that gays should be allowed and should be able to do so without grief or shame.
Should euthanasia be legal

Like anything else there would be some legal safeguards for both ends of the event. If you wanted to have the job done professionally in an assisted method there would be a legal contract. As for youths no contract can be legal until the participant is at least 18 yrs of age. As for having a bad day not many people seriously consider suicide due to a bad day,week or what ever. Most people who seriously consider suicide have suffered for an extended amount of time and have reached a point where they just don't want to suffer anymore or feel that there is no other answer. I think for healthy people there should be a psychological evaluation prior to the legal documentation to have your life ended in an assisted way. I know the suicide of healthy people is morally tough to accept, still is should be that person's right. Just before Christmas I lost a cousin to suicide she suffered from depression for many years. It saddens me that she felt the way she did but on the other hand she ended her suffering which plagued her for years. It's bitter sweet.
Should euthanasia be legal

In the case you allow nurses or doctors to euthanize humans opens up a whole new door of liability. There have been more than a few medical malpractice suits over the years where a nurse or doctor gave the patient to many drugs so they would overdose. Why some patients may be happy with this seeing as they are ready to go, what about the ones who were wrongfully executed? Also, what about all the teenagers that are depressed or suicidal. While sometimes its just a phase that they will grow out of other times it is serious and require treatment. Should a 16 year old girl be able to walk into a hospital and sign away her life because she had a bad day at school?
Should euthanasia be legal

There is no good reason that suicide should not be legal. If a person no longer wishes to live that is their right. Why should you or someone else keep them from taking "the easy way out" as you have stated? No one else should have dominion over another person"s life unless the person is mentally impaired to a point that they haven"t the ability to convey a desire to live. (vegetative state). I work in a nursing home where people beg for death when they are suffering yet they are not permitted to die until their body is too damaged to continue. It is sad and diminishes their dignity. You claim they should not have an easy way out, Why NOT??
Should euthanasia be legal

In your argument you are suggesting assisted suicide. By your opening sentence " Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live..." According to afsp.org 494,169 people visit the hospital a year for self harm and suicide attempts. By allowing people to have the option to euthanize themselves you are giving them an easy way out. When people are rendered incapable of taking care of themselves they are given a proxy, a family member or friend, that is able to chose what happens to them.
Should euthanasia be legal

By saying "they will continue to feel the same way until such a time as the do succeed in killing themselves." you are assuming that everyone who is depressed is also suicidal. Also saying that psychologists will evaluate the person to see if they have "life worth living" is disgusting. Everyone on the planet is here for a reason, and has a purpose. You're right people kill themselves if they want, that is not your argument. Nobody can make a healthy teenager live. I am arguing that we shouldn't give them the option of assisted suicide. I'm not saying people are required to make themselves better., but of people are depressed they should seek help to feel better, not help to die. As for medications, people are lucky to find the right medication the first time. It often takes several tries before the perfect one comes along, it took me three. You have no factual evidence that many people "resort to alcohol and drugs as a form of self medication." while it is true that some people do give up, "most" is an exaggeration. Sometimes treatment should be a mixture of verbal therapy and medication, sometimes one or the other. Everyone on the planet was born for a reason, the goal is to find it.
Should euthanasia be legal

You are correct that 18 year olds have no idea that life changes a great deal as people age but for some they will continue to feel the same way until such a time as they do succeed in killing themselves. There may be other outcomes and as I had previously stated a psychological evaluation should be done and if the people conducting the evaluation are good at understanding people and psychology they would be able to talk the person out of the desire to die if there is a good chance that the person is going to have a life worth living. In reality the people I've known who hated life either eventually killed themselves of are unhappy drug addicted humans. No matter what the reason people should have the right to choose even if that choice is death. It is morally wrong to think that others should be able to legally require a person to live. People should not be required to "try to make themselves better" as you say. Iife, should be their choice not their requirement. As for depression, you are correct that in some cases medication is a solution. It is my experience that the medications are only a temporary solution. The people that I have known with depression go up and down and have to change medications and dosages on a regular basis. Many of these people resort to alcohol and drugs as a form of self medication. Many of these people will eventually after years of suffering kill themselves anyway. That is exactly what happened with my cousin. She was financially successful and intelligent people loved her yet for decades she suffered: many medications,she had trouble maintaining romantic relationships ,no children, would times distance herself from family. Finally she took a bottle of pills with a large volume of alcohol and died it was her choice.
Should euthanasia be legal

Even at the age of 18 kids do not have the life experience to know that things get better. If a person no longer wants to live they should seek therapy, counselling, and most likely be put on medication. Depression is a disorder, a chemical imbalance in the brain. Anti-depressants work to gradually increase serotonin and dopamine levels which pulls you out of depression. The assisted suicide of healthy people is not "morally hard to accept" how could it be when it goes against morals? By allowing assisted suicide to be legal the entire mental health work force would change. People already seeking therapy could then be told things like "We're in our fourth session now and I haven't noticed any changes I'm allowing you to kill yourself, thanks for trying." If people have a way out, why would they try to make themselves better?
It doesn't mean it's better when it is classical.

Nope, done. I have shown the necessity of the Classics over the feebleness of "The New." I have proven with reason that anything "New" must FIRST get its foundations from the "Classical." Additionally, my opponent has ... bowed out? thrown in the towel? waved the white flag? converted? Vote MSP for as the Victor as my opponent is well nigh on his way towards conversion to my side, evidenced by his ineffable: "Go on." Love ya'll -MSP
Welfare is a viable option for the United States.

I wouldn't say so. I'd say that welfare doesn't work.Federal spending on welfare programs has quadrupled since the "War on Poverty" began, but the poverty rate has remained stagnant.Compare that to the years before, when it was falling drastically. Poverty programs have been found only to have a marginal impact on poverty. [1] Poverty rates were falling fast, poverty was around 25% at the end of the second world war, and was 15% in 1965, and has since then stagnated. Job creation and economic growth have proven to raise the poor out of poverty.I will not say welfare is purely harmful. It's not. Welfare might help a guy who needs more income. Overall though, welfare is counter intuitive. It traps people in poverty, if you work harder you will lose your benefits. By getting an entitlement, you don't have to work, and just rely on a benefit. Suddenly, working doesn't seem like a good alternative.These welfare programs discourage the behavior and skills that would raise out of poverty -- staying in skill, getting a job, saving money, and avoiding unmarried pregnancies. Welfare reduces the need of getting a job, and contributes to moral decay - found with higher divorce rates, dependency, higher crime, and higher rates of out of wedlock birth.Since I've established that welfare cuts the incentive to work hard and earn income, and is bad, what's the alternative? Let them starve like many suggest libertarians want to do?If we wish to fight poverty, we must fight it with the most effective weapon - economic prosperity. Free markets generate prosperity better than any other system known to man. We would need to allow businesses to compete, and invest in productivity and innovation - all creating economic growth. Economic growth means more jobs, and with surging job creation, demand would go up, and the poor would get jobs that would give them the skills and the income to rise out of poverty. And as shown above - this clearly has been the most effective system at raising the living standards of the common guy.Private charity would care for the people who fall through the cracks.Welfare progams aren't failing because of too little money. On the contrary. Denise Hoffman, a 46 year old farmer, told a New York Times reporter, "The war on poverty was the worst thing that ever happened to Appalachia. It gave people a way to get by without having to do any work." [2] There was no longer a reason to earn a living. An entitlement culture, as well as violating individual rights, has hurt the poor. By providing a job, these people could gain skills at the bottom, and climb the economic ladder. That's why it's strongly proven that people over their lifetimes rise in the economic ladder after inflation.[1] Census Bureau, "Table 5"Percent of Peopleby Ratio of Income to Poverty Level: 1970"2010,"http://www.census.gov......historical/hstpov5.xls.[2] http://www.nytimes.com......
Welfare is a viable option for the United States.

Thank you for accepting. Welfare, Its not a difficult sociological concept. Welfare may have its share of able bodied citizens who don't want to work and manipulate the system, but that's the price we have to pay to avoid a massively poor and hungry lower class. Its the peoples society. Its OUR society. Some people may not like sharing with the poor and disabled, but they are there. Now we can take the risk and help our fellow citizens, or we can let them starve on the streets. Welfare was established for the citizens who are NOT able to provide those things for themselves. I know its bad to assume but, I think that the reason people don't think welfare is a good idea is because the simple fact that they always think of the stereotypical welfare recipient, Reagan's black "Welfare Queen". The fact of the matter is that the average welfare recipient is a child. And only 39% percent of Welfare recipients are African American. Also, the majority of recipients actually work. They don't sit on their butt all day. Thanks. http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Welfare is a viable option for the United States.

So, I guess before I start out, I should state that this is my first time debating and that I hope that the voters actually read the debates. I hope that you don't just look at the topic and automatically agree with the Pro or Con. We will have 3 debates. So if, for example, I win the first and he wins the second, and somehow you feel that the third was a tie, vote with your hart.WELFARE-* It benefits the country to keep the poor fed and clothed, and to keep them from falling further down the line. IT keeps the from even dying or turning to violence or crime. Why is this a hard concept to understand? People who are lazy and unwilling dont say "Ill straighten up and go get a job." They say, "Im going to go rob someone who cant fight back."
Is there proof of Evolution

Evolution is proved by similiar appearance of embryo. Developing embryos of mammal, fish, amphbian, birds, and repitile share common features, such as tails and gill-like structures. These similarities suggest that the species share a common ancestor. Fossils, patterns of early development, and similar body structures all provide evidence that organisms have changed over time. Is there anymore reason you'd like to say to prove "There is no proof of evolution."
Is there proof of Evolution

A bacteria that becomes immune to a chemical is still the same bacteria but with a slightly different charictoristi. (This could be termed as macro-evolution. This states that variations in a kind (species) can occur. This means that people can be of different hight or skin colour and dogs can be breed to be more docile. This is obviously real but no matter how selective you are with breeding dogs, your end product will always be a dog rather than a cat.
Is there proof of Evolution

A cloud is 99.9% water and a watermelon is 95% water but no one would say that they evolved from each other. Natural evolution can only produce variations in a kind. For example, Darwin's finches. Finches from different islands of the galapagos have different charictoristics but they are all still finches. It is like the difference between a European and an African and I'd hope that you wouldn't call theme different species.
Is there proof of Evolution

"Radioactive carbon dating can only be used with things less than 50,000 years old" Yes, this is true. But 50,000 is a long time. Evolution is still possible in a short period of time. ("short period of time" 1000~10,000 years) Evolution is also proved by Genetic Commanalities. For an example, A human has about 96% genes in common with chimpanzees, and other animals such as cats, mice and birds. This proves that human and these animals came from one ancestor who went through an evolution.
Is there proof of Evolution

The method of radio active carbon dating can only be used it things less than 50,000 years old and it is not accurate as it assumes that the amount of C14 has stayed constant which it hasn't and all other measuring of other elemonts also assume that their level has remailed con stand thoughout hI story. . However, there is uranium dating that supposidly dates to up to 4 billion years. But I doubt that there was any uranium in old bones to biggin with as it would kill them.
Is there proof of Evolution

Sorry, I may have not been clear. Fossil's age can be checked with relative dating and radioactive dating. ( In this case) The fossil with the bird that has claws is older than the fossil with a bird without claws. Also these two birds have been checked genetically and have been proved that they the same species (or close). Evolution can be also proved by common traits of animals. Lizards in a continent and lizards in an island have different appearance but genetically, they are similar.