BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hillary Clinton should not be able to be president

Well firstly Jason Chaftez was the investigator while Trey Gowdy questioned Mrs. Clinton. Hillary Clinton used a personal email accont. Lets look at Section 1236.22B of the Federal Register: ""Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.........specifically designates that employees of certain agencies are allowed to use non-federal email systems." And guess which one of these certain agencies were called? The State Department. Now of course the regulations changed and now any official is not allowed to have a personal email account but that change occurred in 2014. After Clinton served her term. I have made your point have no impact because what you said was misleading and just outwright wrong. Okay so now you talk about why some of her emails on her server were erased. Any email sent to any federal reserve or official was automatically preserved Any email that was "erased" is copied on to a DoD"5015.2 STD-certified product that can be viewed by the State Department or any other federal Reserve Ive made that point null and void because they already have the emails but they haven't found anything. Now on to the security of the four americans. I find it funny that you keep bringing up Benghazi. Everytime you say she didn't do anything to help them I'm going to keep bringing up this "In addition, the House Armed Services Committee conducted a review of air assets available to respond to Benghazi. No U.S. government element refused or denied requests for emergency assistance during the crisis. The evidence also does not show there were armed air assets above Benghazi at any time or that any such assets were called off from assisting U.S. personnel on the ground. According to witness testimony, the security officials on the ground did use laser sights, but they did so as an escalatory demonstration of force in an effort to deter some attackers. They were not lasing targets for air assets. The House Armed Services Committee also examined the question of whether the Defense Department failed to deploy assets to Benghazi because it believed the attack was over after the first phase. The progress report finds that officials at the Defense Department were monitoring the situation throughout and kept the forces that were initially deployed flowing into the region. No evidence has been provided to suggest these officials refused to deploy resources because they thought the situation had been sufficiently resolved." http://www.newsweek.com... http://mediamatters.org...
Hillary Clinton should not be able to be president

Do you think someone who isn't able to handle national security well should become president? Is that your arguement? Don't give me typical left wing bias. Lets talk about the emails, she lied and said that she didn't email any classified material using personal email server. Didn't the state department find more classified material in her server? Didn't they contain material on Benghazi? BTW, Trey Gowdy was doing the investigation on Clinton, not Chaffetz. Here lets see if you can answer all these questions you left wing debater: Why did she erase most of her emails on her server? Did she have something to hide? Why didn't she provide security for those four americans? Was it their job to go and die in the reign of terror
Hillary Clinton should not be able to be president

So since you didn't really define your argument I will do so know You basically think that Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president and others are. If this is not your argument please say so in the comments below and we will work something out I see you are outraged by the Benghazi issue and we will get into that but first here is just a simple fact. These things happen 60 deaths, 13 attacks on US embassies under George Bush. (. http://www.politifact.com...) Did you hear about those? No because the whole reason Benghazi was inflated was because Fox News acted as a propaganda station for the right. But why don't we look at the facts? You say that Clinton refused to send help? Here's some of the report ". .. .. No U. S. government element refused or denied requests for emergency assistance during the crisis. The evidence also does not show there were armed air assets above Benghazi at any time or that any such assets were called off from assisting U. S. personnel on the ground. " "The progress report finds that officials at the Defense Department were monitoring the situation throughout and kept the forces that were initially deployed flowing into the region. No evidence has been provided to suggest these officials refused to deploy resources because they thought the situation had been sufficiently resolved. " You also said that she tried to "cover" up the incident. Even the lead investigator, Jason Chaffez, could not articulate what was being covered up. You would think after spending 3.3 million dollars they would come up with a shred of evidence. But they haven't. They just haven't. The real crime here is that the money going to this witchhunt could've fed hungry children living here in the States Sources: . http://www.politifact.com... . http://mediamatters.org... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Hillary Clinton should not be able to be president

You know Hillary Rodham Clinton may have the support to win the nomination for the Democratic Party, however she isn't someone that can be trusted with handling a country. For example, when she was Secretary of State for 4 years under President Obama, her #1 priority was to protect our ambassadors who were overseas. She didn't obey that priority and because of that it resulted in the deaths of four americans in Benghazi. She was sent multiple emails by Ambassador Stevens, clearly wanting security and all she did was throw those emails away.
You are my god

I did not just hand select the pictures. I took them from the front page of google images so people would be familiar with them. I don't want to give personal shots (like if I'm at home or the club) because people could make money off the previously unseen pictures. I don't want to be hassled by people on this website, which disproves your point. I lied about my information so that people wouldn't annoy me with messages that asked for my autograph or something. I am Manny Ramirez, I gave pics and unrefutable proof with leet's message. The internet supervisor does not want to give me special treatment for being a celebrity. So, he simply told me to attach leet's pic to this debate and acknowledge that it was legitimate for my purposes as well. My opponent cannot see who I am, so there is a possibility I am Manny, which I am! Thanks for setting up an almost impossible burden, logicalmaster17, but I have successfully affirmed the resolution. I urge a Pro vote. Thank you.
You are my god

My opponent gives pictures of Manny Ramirez, and he says that he is him. But there are a few problems with this. Firstly the pictures he took were from google images, and all of them are on the front page. Therefore my opponent just hand selected some pictures. And he says later he did not want to be hassled, and he would if he said he was Manny. This is not true, there are many people on DDO that put famous people's names. For instance, I claim that I am Phil Ivy, he is very famous, and no one has talked to me, so this is false. Also it should be seen that my opponent is a liar, he lied about his profile information, therefore he is lying about being Manny Ramirez. He also has no proof that the internet supervisor said he was legit. Lets give some pictures of my opponent: http://galearning.com.... And take a gander at this: http://www.debate.org... The internet supervisor is quite busy, and he approved this for me as well. NEGATED
You are my god

To win this debate, I must prove that I am Manny Ramirez, for he is my opponent's god. Take a gander at my photo album: http://www.debate.org... All of these are legitimate pictures of me throughout my baseball career. Also, take a gander at this: http://www.debate.org... The message states, "This is to certify that the images posted by leet4A1 are legitimate." Then, the Internet Supervisor signs the message, proving that is is from him. Because the Internet Supervisor is quite busy, he has told me to simply quote the message on leet4A1's profile and state that he has approved it to include my username [studentathletechristian8] as well. Therefore, all of the pictures on my profile are legit. I have lied about my name, ethnicity, and age on my profile. I never wanted to truly reveal myself, for I would get quite hassled. I now let down my guard and have shown myself to be Manny Ramirez. Thanks.
You are my god

1) Yes he is my God 2) Already answered 3)I can do this because you are not Manny Ramirez, and he is my God. Here is Manny: http://en.wikipedia.org... And here is you: http://www.debate.org... Note how your name is Uncle Sam, that is clearly not Manny Ramirez, also you state your white, while Manny is black. And you state you are 16 years old, Manny is in his 30's. Therefore you are clearly not my God.
You are my god

I affirm the resolution, "You are my god." Quick clarifications: you - studentathletechristian8 http://www.debate.org... my - refers to me - logicalmaster17 http://www.debate.org... god - any deified person or object. I have several questions for my opponent: 1) Is Manny Ramirez your god? 2) If not, do you even have a god? 3) How can you prove that I am not your god? I hope my opponent answers these questions. I await the following rounds.
Cannabis should be fully legalised to over 18's.

Resolution: cannabis shouldn't be illegal in the UK. Definition/meanings: Fully legal. No limits on growing it. Available like alcohol, though with a ban on advertising (which I would argue should be the case for alcohol, in case anybody is confused). I will ask the challenger to put forth their reasons first. This is because it seems to me that depriving people of rights, Liberty, property, freedom, the ability to work in many professional careers, and the right to be secure in their own home, requires an explanation. Too long have cannabis users been forced to explain why they deserve equality, it's on those destroying lives who should have to account for their actions. Rules: first round con should justify the ruination of careers, families and lives for the use of something potentially harmful. Con should begin by saying why people who have smoked weed deserve such abuse and discrimination, when other drugs and substances, which are just as destructive, are tolerated (even promoted). I am not arguing that cannabis is unharmful, I am arguing that choosing to discriminate those who prefer cannabis over alcohol or other substances is immoral. Some people like sugar, some like smoking, some like alcohol and some like cannabis-I don't understand why this portion of the population (about 10%) are free game for discrimination when the others are not. Please let's not have that same argument about its health risks because I think it's widely accepted now that alcohol is worse, so this argument is about whether distinguishing cannabis users over other drug uses for discrimination is immoral.
Cannabis should be fully legalised to over 18's.

I extend my argument. In conclusion, con has not substantially legitimised the ruination of people's lives because of their choice to smoke weed. The only justification he offered, was that it is harmful. This was easily undermined by the fact that many things are significantly more harmful than cannabis. Things which nobody could justify punishment for doing, such as extreme sports, alcohol-related entertainments and other non-productive activities which involve risk to those being irresponsible. Disallowing something, on a state level, means making it illegal. Though it's arguable to disallow cannabis or mildly dangerous activities to your children, making it illegal has more severe consequences. These consequences are the reason why I believe it shouldn't be illegal. My opponents logic works, but only on a parental level or in an ideal world where weed could be eradicated. In reality, illegality ruins lives and prevents people from having professional careers because they choose to partake, however responsibly, in an activity that is just as harmful as many other activities. To conclude. My opening statement: Rules: first round con should justify the ruination of careers, families and lives for the use of something potentially harmful. Con should begin by saying why people who have smoked weed deserve such abuse and discrimination, when other drugs and substances, which are just as destructive, are tolerated (even promoted). My opponent did not give reason why cannabis should be punished over other harmful activities. My opponent has not given a substantial reason why people should have their lives ruined for smoking weed. His only reason (that it's harmful), is not enough unless one also agrees with the criminalisation of all activities that can be less harmful than cannabis. Thank you for debating.
religion should be taught in schools

I Believe that my opponent is a very sensitive, caring and optimistic individual. I on the other hand am a realist and it saddens me to come to the realization that most will come to, we are in an era that is getting progressively worse and I am sorry with classes only having partial influences on children nowadays I find it hard to even imagine any government ran program (education) would have a positive influence on school. In addition to it not working I feel that it would have the adverse effect on the education system. When they use to teach sex education to students in school many parents would take them out of the class, so on an issue as important as religion I would expect many more parents to do the same if not more. In regions like the Sudan where religious groups like the Muslims and Christians are getting systematically murdered while the women are raped and exploited.
religion should be taught in schools

i completely agree with the fact that if racism is feeded into the child 's mind by their parents...they would hardly try to implement the things which they ll learn in the school....but how can we forget"something is better than nothing"....its human psychology that if same thing is repeatedly said to u then we start believing in that.same will be the case for children atleast if they are taught in svhools i think a time will be reached where at leas 10% of the students will agree to ""no racism""good things leave their impact late but its long lasting.
religion should be taught in schools

Once again it is a pleasure to be here with my opponent and the people that have taking the time to read the debate, I truly thank you all. I would like to first tell my opponent that she does not need to thank me because all people should treat one another with respect no matter their political affiliation or the religious background. I would like to address the fact that in my home town of Stockton, California we have a very large Indian population, in fact the area is very large. Many of these people are students studying nursing or becoming doctors. Honestly I have a lot of Indian friends but must of them are Sikh love your food and your culture. Now I didn't get to study religion in school so why am I so understanding of your culture? The answer to that question is because my parents instilled understanding and acceptance in my life. Why would I bring up that statement? Well the answer to that question is this, In a perfect world your strategy would work we would have open minded individuals, ready to soak in all kinds of cultures and religions and eventually war, hate and racism would seize to exist. The problem is not in the schools, even if the schools taught understanding the racism is at home from generations and generations of propaganda or hate. So a child will go to school for an hour long religion class which honesty how many children pay attention in school. Then they go home and they are exposed to racism all day. In addition to family members drilling hate into the minds and hearts of their children, these young minds that you state are easily moulded (which I agree whole heatedly) children can turn on there favorite cute television show and learn hate. Take a look at some following links and you will see Hams brainwashing the children to hate Americans and Jews. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... If those do not make you sick and loose hope for religion changing the minds of children I do not know what will. Honestly I wish your idea would work but it would take a person with a kind heart like yours and a family that is not going to teach you hate your entire life.
religion should be taught in schools

yes i completely agree with you that...muslims hate jews and the violence will arise more if this teaching is being done ....but if u think in this way that future of any country is in the hands of the upcoming youth,right from their childhood...if the feeling of "all religions are same" is instilled; i think there will be a time reached where no riots in the name of religion will take place...that is why i think it should be introduced in schools and not any colleges....coz the young kids studying in school can be moulded in any way ...as they have not seen much of the world...if this message is preached ...i think they ll gain respect towards all religion one more thing...i follow hinduism but i respect all religions...i believe no religion is bad,defect is not in any religion or people but its in thoughts...which is built based upon the situations they see around them. i like one thing about you, you keep arguments in a very calm way...u seem to be understanding...
religion should be taught in schools

Although I am a practicing Catholic and I do believe that religion is a very important subject to be taught to children of all ages, I do not feel it is appropriate to be taught in school. Despite the fact that it may boost the level of morality in our society it would also be a detriment to the education system due to distractions that would arise from making it law. I am from the United States and in the United States Constitution which is the law that rules over every other law and governing body here. In the first Amendment to the US Constitution it States that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.". Because public school is a government run organization I feel that teaching religion beyond just the historical relevance would not fly here in America especially with the over sensitivity of the people and defense attorneys looking to make an extra buck. I noticed from your profile that you are from the country of Indian. I am fond of many people from their I have a number of friends that are Hindu, Sikh and Muslim the come from different cities a crossed Indian. Now you should no with the very troubled relationship between Pakistan and Indian mostly based on religion and secondarily based on land disputes that trying to teach a Muslim religions based on poly-theism would cause so much trouble in that region that i am afraid even more violence would be create not understanding. Also try to imagine trying to teach Muslims about the religion of Judaism, with the majority of the Muslim world hating most Jews do to the issue regarding Israel I am afraid your plan although it seems very well intentioned would cause more problems then it would create understanding. I would like for you to tell me your religion if you do not mind so i can better present my position in the next round and I hope you and the people watching this debate have a very happy, safe and prosperous New Year.
Resolved: The Privatization of Civil Services Undermines Democracy.

I accept! My name is Andrew and I love such political/economical debates. Personally, this topic is not one that I have thought of a lot but I am interested and ready for a challenge. I am a large proponent of Contracting and privatization as I believe it is one of the many components of capitalism. I am not as experienced as I would like to be, but that is mainly because there are plenty of idiots out there who ruin debates, so I am glad to see all the rules you have put in place to fix that problem. It has actually been a few months since I've found a good debate so I really do look forward to it! Thanks, and I look forward to debating! -Andrew
Resolved: The Privatization of Civil Services Undermines Democracy.

Hey. Mittens here, doing a debate. If you forfeit, I win.If you mess around too much and I correctly call you out for it, I win.If your arguments are too weak, I win.Definitions1. Privatization - the transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector.The government ceases to be the owner of the transferred entity.2. Civil Services - the permanent professional branches of a government's administration, excluding military and judicial branches and elected politicians.3. Undermine -to weaken or ruin by degrees4. Democracy -a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.PositionsI will be Pro - if that isn't obvious already. It means that I will be taking the side that says: "Yes. The privatization of civil services does undermine democracy."Whoever takes this will be Con. You will be arguing the side that says: "No. The privatization of civil services does not undermine democracy."I mean..That should be obvious. I think. If it isn't, then I don't think you should take the debate.No offense. ^-^StructureThe first round is for you to write your acceptance letter. I will judge it carefully, and if I like you, we shall proceed with the debate. Your acceptance letter must be at least 300 words long.I will allow an exception only on one condition.You must write: "I accept." and insert some interesting tidbit about yourself.And for the last round, you are not allowed to make any new arguments. That's just abusive.I like abusive.But not here. Write even one new argument in the final round and you lose.No pressure. :)EtiquetteGo crazy, but stay respectful. Basically don't say anything that is intended to hurt my feelings and you will be fine.AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDD...................BEGIN!
God doesn't like gay marriage.

(b) "Since when were credible sources required to be primary sources? " -SInce the age of reason began basically, he tries to wiggle out of it by listing an un-credible source. That was thw purpose of the verses, it was to say that the bible does not display an omnibonevolent god (c) One, he doesn't prove that god wrote the bible, so he has to tell us directly that he dislikes gay marriage two, he drops the entire argument so you must vote pro ok, now on my verses. youn cannot pick and choose what you want to follow. either A- god didn't write the bible, therefore he has no source. or b- he wrote the bible, and now his rules don't apply now. ________________________________the main reason you HAVE to vote con, is that- HE DROPS MY PREVIOUS ARGUMENT " his sources do not say that they cannot marry. They just can't have sex. therefore, I win" since I also, destroyed his only source, he has no sources. he has never heard god say that he despises gay marriage. YOU MUST VOTE CON Even if you buy that the bible is the word of god, the bible never says that they cannot marry. They just can't have sex.