BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
President Nixon was a good president

Okay first the rebuttal: 1. The fight against Communism was a noble one, no doubt, but if Nixon had truly been committed to wiping it out he should have stayed in Vietnam. My point wasn't he was wrong for staying in, but rather, that he was a fence sitter who wouldn't go either way. 2. I believe that you also agree that Watergate was lowly and a pathetic way to try to win an election. Not only were people caught breaking into the Watergate complex, but Nixon's administration was also charged with improper tax audits, fraud, illegal wire tapping, and bribery. Its not like he was drunk and said "Hey guys, lets prank the Democrats!" He knew very well and was involved in the scandal to a huge extent. Eventually in the Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon, the court voted unanimously for Nixon to give the tapes of his conversations over to evidence. 3. Now on to your President's argument. -Lincoln had every right to suspend Habeus Corpus. In the U.S. Constitution, Article One Section Nine, it states "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." The nation was in a Civil War and the South was at their doorstep. I consider this an appropriate action to protect the public, because it was an extreme situation. -Franklin D. Roosevelt did in fact try to pack the Supreme court with more justices, but the Constitution does not limit the number of people on the Supreme court so what he was doing may have been ethically questionable, but it was technically lawful. -Ronald Reagan gave money to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. Just like you said Nixon fought Communism, this was in fact designed to fight Communism. It is unfortunate that when the Soviet Union Afghanistan had no real government so it fell into the hands of Al Queda. This has nothing to do with Reagan. - Jefferson's embargo act was not unlawful, and it was in retaliation for the British taking three Americans hostage. So in the end, you cannot even come close to comparing Nixon to the great men listed above, though I refer to FDR as great cautiously. As for the whole map being red, you do realize the President you are defending was Republican.
President Nixon was a good president

Nixon believed in the cause of the Vietnam War. The war to fight communism helping the democratic South Koreans to help maintain their government. But Nixon didn't start the Vietnam War he inherited it from his predecessors Kennedy and Johnson. The main point is at least Nixon did what he promised he pulled the troops out of Vietnam instead of leaving the problems for the next president to deal with it. Watergate Scandal Nixon sent spies over to the opposite party to gain info on what the democrats would use in their campaign by the committee to re-elect Nixon. Even when he was caught and a percentage of the U.S knew about the Watergate Scandal the main highlight and end result was that Nixon had won the election by a LANDSLIDE. He won by the 4th largest margin in American history. Nixon did what he did out of paranoia and even with a percentage of Americans knowing what Nixon tried to do (watergate) America still voted for him and still would have voted for him. What Nixon did was wrong a cheap way to try to rig a election but his plan at Watergate failed. He lied to the American public but what I am trying to say is that it was a lie that wasn't needed because looking at the result of the electoral college Nixon would have won regardless. Nixon made a mistake and tried to abuse his powers but I have to ask you guys what great president hasn't tried to do that? Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and imprisoned many innocent people for speaking Franklin D Roosevelt had the court packing system which showed he was trying to gain more power than he was allowed. Ronald Reagan helped and gave money to the organization that would later be known today as Al Queda.(BAD) Thomas Jefferson passed the Embargo Act These are presidents who are all ranked according to the Gallop poll the top 10 presidents of the United States and they are all not perfect neither is Nixon. Nixon was a president who made one mistake like other presidents who made many. Nixon's accomplishments in foreign policy giving us years of peace with the soviets, Civil rights and environmental policies should not be overshadowed by this one mistake when every other president (I named) gets praised for their accomplishments and having their mistakes ignored in history. That map sure is red. http://upload.wikimedia.org...
President Nixon was a good president

Nixon was a demeaning President for the following reasons: 1. Nixon cut NASA's budget, thereby making the shuttle program useless when it came into play. Originally NASA had planned on building space stations and using the shuttle (hence the name "shuttle") to take astronauts to the stations, and then send them off to different places. Nixon however, believed that after the Moon missions, there was no point. Now because of that, we have been limited to just outer orbital missions. 2. President Nixon willfully kept our men and women in Vietnam despite being advised otherwise. After four years and thousands of American lives he then decided to pull us out. Nixon was simply a fence sitter. He didn't have the guts to pull us out sooner, or win the war. 3. Watergate. Simple as that. Nixon's administration was caught illegally spying on the opposite party and involved in fraud. When confronted with this he simply denied it, despite the mounting evidence against him. When finally he was threateded with impeachment he resigned from his office as President of the United States. As historian Henry Steele Commager said Nixon was the first "Wicked President."
Incestuous marriage

So you want to impose your own morality onto them ? you are not taking into account that what if the family doesn't mind why would they still be stopped ? what if they don't care about their family? So you are stopping someone from happiness because it would damage something they don't care about? . 'The Issue of Children' An important thing to take into mind when creating debates on here is to be specific , we are debating the actual marriage therefore i simply do not need to refute this point since it is irrelevant . ' What I'm trying to explain is that your instincts should tell you that it's wrong. ' So if you think that homosexuality is disgusting you should ban it? just because of your opinion? you are imposing your own morality onto other people how would 2 close relatives having sex at the privacy of their own home affect you in a negative way more specifically how would them getting married harm you? . I await my opponents response
Incestuous marriage

This is my first debate so I hope to learn a lot from this. Before I state my reasons for being against incestuous marriage I want to make it clear that I support gay marriage. Another thing I want to mention is that I am not religious so my answers won't be influenced too much by the Bible and other religious figures. I'm now going to list my reasons and why I've chosen them. 1- Whilst being a supporter of gay marriage I don't like the idea of incestuous marriage. This is because I feel that family is a very precious thing, and for something like a sexual relationship between siblings could tear the family apart and cause a lot of stress and bullying for both those in the relationship and the family of them. 2- The issue about children. As I'm sure you're aware in some cases, inbred children can be severely disabled. Some of the consequences of inbreeding can be quite serious. Let me tell you a few. Human inbreeding can cause reduced fertility and increased child mortality/morbidity. Not only that but serious issues with learning, seeing and hearing aren't unheard of either. I'll post a couple of links here about one very tragic story. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... & . http://www.independent.co.uk... 3- You should find it instinctively wrong. Now, I hate to ask you this but if you were to imagine having a sexual relationship with a close relative would you feel repulsed? Or would you think, oh yeah, I'd like some of that. What I'm trying to explain is that your instincts should tell you that it's wrong. I also find it morally wrong. It goes against society. It pushes the limits. It . .. the definitions of something being 'morally wrong' could go on forever. I have more to say, but I'd like to hear your response before I say anything more. Ta ta.
Incestuous marriage

'I said it COULD cause family issues and not that it will.' Any type of marriage can cause problems , The couple made the decision and the family doesn't have to approve of it for it to be legitimate . ' then it would have an effect on a much larger scale than just me. ' Tell me how it would affect you in a negative way in person . '. You haven't really given any reasons for why you accept it. ' Because there is no reason for me to against it , Since I don't feel the need to restrict others freedom . 'I have to disagree with you there, as married couples tend to have children, ' You didn't put it in the description therefore I have no need to adress it , you wrote simply about the actual marriage therefore that's the only thing we are addressing , next time you have to expand in your description of the debate. Honestly I can't expand on my own views since it's simple I do not belive there is a need to restrict their freedom . My opponent didn't give me any more issues to adress but if he wishes he can write more about the issue of incestious marriage if he has a strong opinion on it and I will adress the issues he has presented .
Incestuous marriage

You say to me "what if the family doesn't mind, would they still be stopped?" Well in reply to that remark can I point out that I said it COULD cause family issues and not that it will. I hope that clears the air for you. Well. Back to the debate eh? Thank you again for your quick response. I appreciate it. Please remember that I support gay marriage, so please don't assume that just because I am against incestuous marriage, doesn't mean that I'm automatically against gay marriage. You have said that it wouldn't affect me if someone was to be in this sort of relationship. Well, I say that if this is a debate of legality, then it would have an effect on a much larger scale than just me. You haven't really given any reasons for why you accept it. Along with trying to shoot down my reasoning try to come up with some reasons of your own. So that you completely understand how against it I am let me give you a scale example. On a scale of 'yes, I love this' to 'I disagree with this' and 'no this is wrong. They shouldn't be allowed to live' I'd say I'm in the middle at 'I disagree with this'. In other words, I think that it is wrong, but I'm not going to go outside and campaign against it. I think doing that would be very unfair. You have also said that the issue of children is irrelevant. I have to disagree with you there, as married couples tend to have children, and I did not write in the debate description that it's marriage without children we're discussing, so I'd say it's fairly relevant. You say yes for incestuous marriage. I say, or rather quote "yeah, well, that's just like your opinion man". Just kidding. Your opinion is strong and I thank you for engaging with me in this debate. It's been nice to hear your ideas. I look forward to your response. So long. (Here is a video link for the "yeah, well , that's just like your opinion man." I hope you like it.)
Should the ACA - Affordable Care Act or Obamacare be renamed the LACA - the LESS Affordable Care Act

1) The debate is as the debate was posited "Should the ACA - Affordable Care Act or Obamacare be renamed the LACA - the LESS Affordable Care Act" 2) The 1000 percent increase was my demonstration and ANY increase above the CPI (consumer price index) would result in LESS affordable care and the burden of proof is merely any increase above the CPI. 3) My 1000% increase is based on a notification that I received from my healthcare provider. It shows a 48% increase for 2014 over 2013. Increases were also forecast for 2015, 2016 and 2017. The final 2017 number IS ten times the 2012 and 2013 premium. 4) from Forbes's 6/10/13 "Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent. " Democrats continue to try to dismiss the evidence that Obamacare will dramatically increase the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. But on Thursday, the Ohio Department of Insurance announced that, based on the rates submitted by insurers to date, the average individual-market health insurance premium in 2014 will come in around $420, "representing an increase of 88 percent" relative to 2013. "We have warned of these increases," said Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor in a statement. "Consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014." The rates that Ohio reported are proposed rates; the Department of Insurance still has to formally approve them. "A total of 14 companies proposed rates for 214 plans to the Department. Projected costs from the companies for providing coverage for the required [by Obamacare] essential health benefits ranged from $282.51 to $577.40 for individual health insurance plans." It"s called "rate shock," but it"s not shocking to people who understand the economics of health insurance. In August 2011, Milliman, one of the nation"s leading actuarial firms, predicted that Obamacare would increase individual-market premiums in Ohio by 55 to 85 percent. This past March, the Society of Actuaries projected that the law would increase premiums in that market by 81 percent. Like good players on "The Price is Right," they both came in just under the Dept. of Insurance"s figure." 5) Quid Erat Demonstatum
Should the ACA - Affordable Care Act or Obamacare be renamed the LACA - the LESS Affordable Care Act

The Affordable Care Act will raise my premium by a factor of ten times. If care costs me $300 a month now, it will be $3,000 a month by 2017. My benefits will not change with the possible exception of the removal of a 2 million dollar life time limit. I believe, after looking into the text of the act, that there are many hidden taxes in the act. I spoke to my US Senator about some of the provisions in the act and he was unaware of these issues. Note that he voted for the act, but was unaware of at least some of the content of the act. Due to my experience, the act should be renamed as the LESS Affordable Care Act (LACA). The LACA could indicate a LACA (lack of) concern by Washington as to the state of the citizenry.
Legalization of gay marriage

"Two people loving each other regardless of gender is fine. Two people loving each other regardless of whether or not they're related by blood is not."That's not how a debate works. My opponent never explained why they're different, so we must assume that they're not. "And yes, children can sign their name, but again, it can't be a one - way thing. Marriage is a two way thing."So... the adult signs it, too? I was refering to pedophilia, not beastiality. "You think, honsetly think that a woman wanting to marry another woman because they're both in love and they want to get married is nearly on the same level as some dumb teen saying "Oh no, I'm prego, better marry the father right away!" or a celebrity saying "Like, I know I have a bazillion fans, but I don't have enough attention. *gasp* I've got it! I'll marry this person for a week to get some buzz!"?"Since you haven't explained otherwise, yes. "And nobody HAS to be gay you blithering twat," Well that wasn't very nice. "Okay. Firstly, what in the holy hell have you been reading?"This: http://aids.gov... exact stat is 61%. " How would legalizing it assist in it? "Some homosexuals abstain from sex before marriage (e.g., gay Salvaiton Army officers), with them not having sex, less AIDS is transmitted. " You didn't see white guys rushing to the plastic surgury place when interracial marriage became legal."wut Anyway,The resolution has been negated.
Legalization of gay marriage

"And what about incest? polygamy? Heck, even children can sign their name."No, gay marriage doesn't open the door to incest. Two people loving each other regardless of gender is fine. Two people loving each other regardless of whether or not they're related by blood is not. That's two different points. And yes, children can sign their name, but again, it can't be a one - way thing. Marriage is a two way thing. And I haven't proven that beastiality won't happen, I'm proveing that a dude can't marry a rock. A guy and a guy getting married is on the same level now as a black guy marrying a white girl used to be in terms of social acceptability. It's different."Just because dumb things are legal doesn't mean they ruin the sanctity of marriage."You think, honsetly think that a woman wanting to marry another woman because they're both in love and they want to get married is nearly on the same level as some dumb teen saying "Oh no, I'm prego, better marry the father right away!" or a celebrity saying "Like, I know I have a bazillion fans, but I don't have enough attention. *gasp* I've got it! I'll marry this person for a week to get some buzz!"?"If they don't have to be gay, why do we?"Yes, I know animals mate for life, I'm not retarded. But unless it's a disney movie (which I wouldn't be suprised if that was a large portion of your research material) animals don't have marital problems, they don't have affairs, and even if they do they don't have big breakups over it. And nobody HAS to be gay you blithering twat, it's something you figure out. And btw, you'd be suprised how many male dogs I see humping each other, so there's that."All part of the weed agenda I'm sure." Didn't we already have this debate? What does this have to do with this debate?Simple fact: WEED HAS NO CONNECTION TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AT ALL. "Also, let's not forget that over 60% of AIDS cases are caused my male to male sexual intercourse. Legalizing gay marriage could easily encourage the spread of disease."Okay. Firstly, what in the holy hell have you been reading? Secondly, even if that stat was true (which it probably isn't), how would keeping gay marriage illegal stop the spread? How would legalizing it assist in it? People wouldn't want to be gay more often if gay marriage was legal. You didn't see white guys rushing to the plastic surgury place when interracial marriage became legal.
Legalization of gay marriage

1. And what about incest? polygamy? Heck, even children can sign their name. All my opponent has proven is that beastiality won't happen, but gay marriage can still certainly open the floodgate for a guy to marry his cousin.2. And who says I'm opposed to laws regarding that? Fair enough, the government could implement a regulation that a marriage has to last a year in order to maintain the sanctity of marriage. Just because dumb things are legal doesn't mean they ruin the sanctity of marriage.3. Penguins mate for life. Dolphins have recreational sex. Now that I've implanted those images into your head, I've also shown that some animals are in fact capable of emotional complexity. If they don't have to be gay, why do we? All part of the weed agenda I'm sure.Also, let's not forget that over 60% of AIDS cases are caused my male to male sexual intercourse. Legalizing gay marriage could easily encourage the spread of disease. That being costly, as well, as health insurance premiums skyrocket.My opponent has not met his burden of proof.
Legalization of gay marriage

Well I guessed you would. Let me open with my argument for gay marriage, seeing as you've wasted round 1 with your stupidity.What do most people have against gay marriage? Here are the 3 most common arguments against it, just so I can put you at a disadvantage.1. It opens all kinds of doors for crazy marriages.2. It ruins the sanctity of marriage!3. It's unnatural, no other animal does it.1: No it doesn't. Animals can't sign marriage documents and thus can't get married. Simple. Moving on!2: Anymore than straight people already have? Look, if celebrities can be married for 12 hours then get divorced all for the sake of the cameras, then two guys or two girls who actually love each other should be allowed to get married.3: That's because animals aren't capable of the emotional complexity of humans. Animals don't have serious relationships, they don't have wedding ceremonies. And if they do, it's because their owner did it, not the animal.Hit me with your best shot, bro.
Objective morality would prove naturalism to be false

Naturalism: "a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. "Objective: "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. "Morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. " (definitions taken from google)***This debate operates under the assumption that objective morality exists. It is not part of this debate to prove whether or not objective morality exists, only that objective morality would prove naturalism to be false. ***
Objective morality would prove naturalism to be false

I'm not quick to judge, but I am a rational individual. I want to thank you for taking this debate more seriously than a few others you've accepted.Morality only entails purpose-driven behavior. Robbing, cheating, giving to charity, loving, etc,. If existence arose randomly, like naturalism suggests, no purposeful cause of our existence exists. Therefore, nobody can have any objective purpose. If nobody has any objective purpose, purpose-driven behavior (morality) cannot be objectively right or wrong. Since objective right and wrongs do exist, it logically follows that we don't have a purposeless cause of our existence.If you say that no purpose exists whatsoever, you also can't argue that morality exists for the purpose of propagation.
Objective morality would prove naturalism to be false

I am a genius, but thanks for demonstrating that you're quick to judge, which means you're quick to believe, thus telling me all I need to know about your integrity. 1. What does a Universe's consequences which accompany its faculties have to do with purpose? Nothing. That's your ignorance speaking - please silence it in its redundant favor. 2. Refer to above. 3. Assigned by what? People do not know their own existence, let alone their purpose. Any "purpose" is a misinterpretation of being committed to a random aspect in life. There's nothing else to it. It's just people being over-excited and forgetting reality because of it. 4. Refer to above. 5. Refer to above. You are making connections where they cannot exist without contradictions, therefore learn the abstractions of purpose before you try to shove it in your "argument".
Objective morality would prove naturalism to be false

. And judging by your previous debates I can see that you're very likely to be a troll. All well. P1: Objective morality can only exist if objective purpose existsP2: Since objective morality exists, objective purpose existsP3: "Purpose" can only be assigned by sentient beings. P4: Since a purpose assigned by ourselves cannot be objective, a sentient being apart from human beings is the source of objective purpose. C: A sentient being apart from human beings is the source of objective morality. This proves that naturalism, as a purposeless origin of our existence, could not be possible if objective morality exists.
Objective morality would prove naturalism to be false

Objective morality does not equal - "god". I see where you're going with this, and you're wrong. It does not disprove natural occurrences - it amplifies the grandness of them. The Universe is not a "being" - it's "becoming". Bacteria are naive, therefore the Universe is not a design, but an unfinished design. Thus your little argument and secrets under your sleeve have been destroyed.