BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abuses of Abu Ghraib prisoners by Americans can be blamed on the Left

This is not a semantics debate, and while some spectators may experience symptoms resembling acute exposure to trolling, I assure you, that is not the intent. I am arguing that if blame for the infamous Abu Ghraib prison scandal is to be extended beyond soldiers and officers immediately involved, it would be tied more directly to the political left than anyone in the White House at the time of the scandal.
Transgenders should use the restrooms according to their gender

This is a bad idea for several reasons. First of all, when a person who is transgender is forced to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender that they don't identify with, they are subjected to verbal, physical, and sexual abuse. Because you say that they can't use the bathroom they identify with, and because many transgender people feel that they may be in danger if they use the bathroom of their physical gender, many transgender people simply don't use the bathroom when they're in the workplace or school. This can lead to serious health risks. When normal people are put in danger of serious harm just because of hateful, transphobic people, you know you have a problem. Secondly, this proposed policy simply does more to separate people into groups, where they can then be demonized and insulted. They're just normal people. Discrimination is something that has plagued society for centuries. In a civilized nation, discrimination has no place. Finally, this is just plain unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees us all equal protection under the law. By causing discriminatory policies to be put in place and by causing people to possibly be subjected to severe mental and physical bullying and harassment as a direct result of said policies, you are directly violating the aforementioned amendment. For these reasons, and many more, I respectfully request that voters cast their opinions against these proposed policies.
textbooks in school are more reliable than word of mouth teaching.

I disagree that text book teaching is more reliable then word of mouth teaching. Word of mouth teaching or open discussion teaching would have major advantages compared to the liner book approach. One example is if students are reading strictly out of a text book they may not even comprehend what they are reading. Also you would run into problems with some students that cannot learn that way. Perhaps they are dyslexic or have A.D.D. or simply just cannot read. As for your argument on confusing the students on whatever topic they are studying by adding stuff that may not be in the book. Well is that not a good thing? I would think that as long as a qualified teacher was talking about whatever topic he/she would know what points he/she should stress to the student. Finally I would also like to point out that word of mouth teaching would be more reliable to students because it would start a dialog within the class. which would lead to more questions and more knowledge for the student.
textbooks in school are more reliable than word of mouth teaching.

I beleive that textbooks are more reliable in the school system than word of mouth teaching because the teacher may confuse students in ways that the textbook cannot. of course the teacher may have a connection of speech on a personal level with the students, but the textbook may lay out the information in ways that all students may relate to. for example, social studies books or literature books. the teacher may get facts excluded from the topic and add them in, confusing the students on said topic. while the textbook can lay out the information in front of the student, in a plain study format, alowing the student to referance the textbook at needed moments, such as homework. with the teacher it requires taking notes, or oral memorization on the topic of speaking. making the study so much harder to learn and understand. i plead for a responding argument. thankyou.
Which sports car

Well it depends on what type of Corvette you're after for because there is seven generations of the Chevrolet Corvette. However the most recent version if the C7 which was released last year which doesn't look that good, if i was you i'd choose the C6. More info on what i've mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... Your turn and good luck!
Which sports car

So I want to buy a new car, which car should I choose best? The jaguar f type, the corvette, Lexus rc F or the BMW M4 I guess they all have their unique best, but I just can't decide on which one would be more stand out type.. What do you guys think is best option of u had the money for it and you could buy it right now which would you choose? Have fun debating. I'll be reading all option
I am awesomer than you. (Just for fun)

In this debate, each debater will adopt random, everyday occurences in each round to prove that they are awesome. Then, voters will decide who put up better points. Points must be original, not adapted Chuck Norris facts or the like. Here we go: 1. Whenever I pick up my kids at school, the other kids are so frightened of my aura of power that they all get into buses and leave. 2. Whenever I walk into JC Penney's, they discount all the items just for me. 3. I arbitrarily named my son Jesus, and now whenever I walk past the First Church of God, I hear them worshiping his great name. I await a response.
I am awesomer than you. (Just for fun)

Thank you, thegodhand, for starting this debate. 1. As I walk through a city, all of the criminals are so scared of my power that the resulting adrenaline makes them literally fly back to their hiding places. But before they arrive, I've already lined their hideout with dynamite. Fun times. 2. Instead of buying things from other people, I put them together using raw materials that I harvested. By converting energy from the sun into matter. 3. The real reason the 2008 Olympics were held in China? It was as far as the athletes could get from feeling constantly outdone by my radiating awesomeness.
Death: Should There Be A Choice

So I have to complete 3 debates to be considered a 'true' member of this site. This debate number 2. Euthanasia: Back in college I wrote a pretty awesome report on this issue. Wished I'd kept it. Okay, not the point. I've worked in the medical field for the last twenty years and I've witnessed some pretty awful things. If a patient is dying and no amount of medical intervention is going to save them, why can't they have the choice to go quietly and without all that pain and misery. Trust me, death can be hard and I don't mean on the living. I know if I had a deteriorating, no cure disease I'd like the option of choosing a quiet, easy death but only once my disease reached the point where I was reduced to living from bed. I'm not speaking just from a medical perspective but from experience. I watched as my mother and a beloved aunt both withered, physically and mentally, from a neurological disease that kills very slowly, but before it does it reduces a person to a bedridden husk. It's not easy and that's where I think the real problem lies - family. They hate to see a loved one suffer and yet they refuse to consider death as an option even when nothing else is left. It's true we don't have legal euthanasia but a person can choose to stop all medical treatment. A hard way to go. And then, what if that person can't make the choice, what if the very thing killing them has also robbed them of their ability to think, to speak, to tell us what they want. It's left to the family and loved ones cling, always hoping for a miracle. Okay, I'm a little of topic, sorry but this is one issue I am truly passionate about. I would have liked to ease my mother and aunt's suffering and yet killing someone is against the law, right? It's morally wrong and I agree but there comes a time when death is wrong, it's the only thing left. Allowing someone to suffer, to gasp and struggle for each breath, to writhe and moan in pain is morally wrong. So though it may be wrong, both morally and legally, to murder someone in cold blood, is really wrong to help ease an already dying person into death? I don't think. Okay, as I understand it I'm supposed to be laying out ground rules and such but that's not going to happen. It's my opinion that no one's opinion is wrong. If you don't agree with me, well that's how you feel but I do love arguing such things so go ahead and argue away. I don't believe there can a resolution (not the way I understand it) and I don't much care who wins though winning would be total awesome sauce. What I'm looking for is someone who can argue the opposite side and have fun doing it. That's all.
U.S. foreign aid to Egypt should be cut off.

What took place in Egypt in the past summer was a coup d'etat, which I define as the overthrowing of a government by a small group, usually the military, in favor of a new government. Since a military coup took place in Egypt, it would be a violation of American law to send 1.3 billion in foreign assistance over to the Egyptian military. The law was passed in 1961 and was reinforced by the 2011 Omnibus Bill. It clearly states that, "funds cannot be made available to any country operating under a government achieved through "a coup d'"tat or degree in which the military plays a decisive role. " [1]. By those definitions, Egypt experienced a coup, and their aid should be cut off. It would be unacceptable for the United States to continue sending aid to the Egyptian military seeing as it overthrew a democratically elected president. How can the U. S. preach democracy and promote democratic elections when it isn't willing to stop sending aid to a group that went against its' ideals? The U. S. cannot continue to aid the Egyptian military without looking like hypocrites. The U. S. cannot send them money, not just for the sake of democracy, but for the sake of the Egyptian civilians. "The military-backed government had authorised the use of live ammunition, warning anyone attacking the police or official buildings would be dealt with "severely". " [2]. The military has killed hundreds of protesters and demonstrators in the streets of Cairo. Who knows what the military could do to the people if they receive the 1.3 billion in aid from the U. S. 1. . http://www.usnews.com... 2. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide.

Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon. " If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling. Since Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicides are the same exact thing the terms and wording may be used interchangably throughout the debate Euthanasia- Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Physician Assisted Suicided- suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Restrictions on tobacco marketing in the US should be repealed.

This is not a debate, this is a battle of morality. Smoking kills 443,000 people per year(more than alcohol, drugs, murder, suicides, and HIV). The family smoking and tobacco prevention act keeps the truth of smoking out, without it cigarette businesses would hide the truth. In 2000 The supreme court put bans on cigarette companies sponsoring sports or entertainment, advertising within 1000 feet of schools, bans on free samples, and selling pacages of less than 20. Would you put those bans on something that"s not dangerous. you want to repeal what's keeping many minors and adults safe. I don"t think so. 'About Tobacco Laws and Regulations Why is tobacco control important? Tobacco control programs aim to reduce disease, disability, and death related to tobacco use. A comprehensive approach"one that includes educational, clinical, regulatory, economic, and social strategies"has been established as the best way to eliminate the negative health and economic effects of tobacco use. What is the difference between a law and a regulation? Federal laws, like the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), are passed by Congress and signed by the president. These laws are usually enforced through executive branch agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Laws can also be enacted at the state and local level to protect public health and make tobacco products less affordable, less accessible, and less attractive. For example, states may pass smoke-free indoor air laws and cigarette price increases, which have been proven to reduce cigarette use, prevent youth from starting to smoke, and encourage people to try to quit. The executive branch, when authorized by Congress, enacts Federal regulations. States can also introduce regulations. Most regulations are developed by a government agency with public input. For example, FDA issues tobacco-related regulations under authority provided by the Tobacco Control Act through a notice and comment rulemaking process. This process allows for public input before FDA issues the final regulation.' from https://betobaccofree.hhs.gov... they said it well. I was raised on a truth that smoking is dangerous and letting that danger near children with advertising is a generally bad idea.
Restrictions on tobacco marketing in the US should be repealed.

The most famous measure to restrict tobacco advertising in the US was the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, which banned the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio. More recently new restrictions have come out against tobacco advertising. To quote the FDA's website:"The FDA issued a final rule containing a broad set of federal requirements designed to significantly curb access to and the appeal of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children and adolescents in the United States. The new rule, Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents, restricts the sale, distribution, and promotion of these products to make them less accessible and less attractive to kids. The rule became effective on June 22, 2010, and has the force and effect of law." [1]It lists the following restrictions on tobacco marketing:- Prohibits tobacco brand name sponsorship of any athletic, musical, or other social or cultural event, or any team or entry in those events.- Prohibits gifts or other items in exchange for buying cigarettes or smokeless tobacco products.- Requires that audio ads use only words with no music or sound effects.- Prohibits the sale or distribution of items, such as hats and tee shirts, with tobacco brands or logos.My position is that these restrictions are unconstitutional and anti-free market. They are baseless regulations which have no place in the United States. By accepting this debate, you will be arguing in favor of the restrictions and regulations.Round Format:Round 1 – AcceptanceRound 2 – Initial Argument(s)Round 3 – Rebuttal(s)Round 4 – Closing Statement(s)Rules:- Forfeiting a round results in an automatic victory for the other side. - The 10,000 character limit cannot be breached by moving parts of your round into the comment section.- Ask any questions or concerns about the debate in the comment section prior to accepting the debate.[1] https://web.archive.org...
Justin Beiber is a Gay

Contention. Justin Beiber kissed another man.The argument my opponent brings in defense of the resolution is that he personally saw the pop star kissing another man. There are, I think, three major problems with this argument, making it far from enough to justify my opponent's case.(1) My opponent failed to provide actual evidence of Mr. Beiber actually kissing another man. If no evidence is provided then there is no reason to even accept the assertion. For instance, I could make the simple counter-contention that I saw Justin Beiber having sex with a women and there would be just as much reason to accept this. The point is that in the words of Mr. Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."[1](2) Even if evidence was provided of Mr. Beiber kissing another man, this would still not be sufficient evidence to prove that he is a homosexual. To understand this, consider the definition of a homosexual. It is defined as either sexual attraction to one's own gender or having sexual intercourse with members of one's sex.[2] Kissing is neither of these and thus is in itself insufficient to prove my opponent's case. Consider people we generally kiss who we are definitely not attracted to, our grandmother, an old aunt, a great-grandfather, and other older family members where kissing is simply a greeting with no sexual undertones. Kissing itself is insufficient to prove sexual attraction.(3) Even if sexual attraction to other men or evidence of intercourse with members of his own sex were properly established, my opponent would have still not met his burden of proof. Remember that there is not a simple dichotomy of you're either straight or gay. There are also other "middle" positions such as pansexuality wherein one is attracted to someone not based on gender or bi-sexuality wherein one is attracted to both other males and females. No reason was provided by my opponent to refute either of these positions especially considering that there is ample evidence of his being attracted to females as well[3][4].===Sources===[1] http://www.goodreads.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.tmz.com...[4] http://articles.latimes.com...
Who would win USA and UK VS RUSSIA china and north korea no nukes

Since there are no terms, I will assume that there are no rules except for the standard no swearing and providing proof rule. So let's begin... A war with the China, Russia and N.Korea, would utterly destroy American and British powers in a heart beat and here's how. China would be spearheading the offensive in terms of the economic cutoff with the US, while North Korea would launch an all-out ground assault, diverting the American attention from its external influence, and Russia providing air support and naval blockades. The US is currently in tremendous debt to the Chinese government and a war between them will cause famine and an immediate apocalypse in the US. However we must take into account that the majority of the American influence in the world, depends on its military bases and the extraction of resources in those specific regions. The bulk of the American military is in the mainland therefore the quick overrun of such external military bases will be swift and effortless, considering the foreign populations sentiments toward an American occupation. So with the economic and naval blockade, ground assault, air support, and local assistance, the Americans will be totally cutoff from the external world and will only rely on its allies to assist them in their liberation. The UK is probably more in danger than the US. The throne will not involve English military but rather they rely on its dominions such as Jamaica, Canada, Australia and so on, to defend it. Therefore by law of the British Monarchy, those nations are obligation to provide troops, weapons and financial assistance in the defense of the British Crown. There currently exists pockets of local resistance in these dominions that are actively against the Crown, through social media and public interactions. A war such as this will give them the opportunity the have been waiting for to attack the Loyalists and reclaim what the Brits took from them in the first place and that was their identity. It is common knowledge that England has no resources other than wheat and therefore it would be much easier to shut off the English from access to their dominions who provide them the necessities of life. Earlier, we saw the Scots attempting to separate from the UK and the Irish have great resentment towards the English. So over the course of history, the UK has collected a huge list of enemies that want to destroy the English. So with nothing but allies at this point, theres no other option but total surrender of the American and British forces to the Chinese, Russian, and N.Korean alliance. (Interestingly, if you combine the abbreviations of US and UK, it says USUK, meaning you suck. therefore we can begin with saying to both military superpowers, "U SUK') your turn
Dogs are better than Cats

Well I dont have much time so ill make this short and by the way just to make things clear, im only putting a question mark on some sentances because I am simply asking them if they agree on what I am saying. Yes? FirstThough you are saying that these all I am saying are only oppinions, I do agree, though it is only because a debate like this was MEANT for oppinion. I have never heard of facts about which is better. SecondIf cats and cat owners work together, then they may someday be able to work together and achieve things that dogs can also do.ArgumentDogs are most likely to be thrown away. I am actually in fact watching an adoption commercial and there were more dogs that were homeless than cats. That is currently all I have.... So... Yeah I didnt really have well enough arguments so you know, juts vote up there...../\