BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Russia is a new dominant power in Middle East

As you know, Syrian issue took a new step, after Russian federation suggested a plan to regulate "chemical weapon" problem (transer all Syrian war-chemical capacities to UN). After Barack Obama failed negotiations in Congress and gave a chance for Russia to enter the game with their rules, all American positions in Middle East have become misirable. For USA, from this time point, it's doesn't matter what will be later. If USA will continiue agressive politics on Syria, all world comunity will raise against. If USA let Russia push themselves around and USA will refuse from their "peace-keeping" operation, Russian influence will become much more significant in this region. So, Russian Federation will dominate this region for next several years.
Should we use Cloning as much as we do.

"But now, cloning is accepted and practiced." This is a highly inaccurate statement, as cloning is today a very controversial practice. It is highly difficult to achieve and is used mostly in genetic studies. My question is, why does the 'ratio of failure' mean we shouldn't clone? Just because something is hard doesn't mean the scientific community has ever stopped trying. Cloning has many benefits. For one, it can save the lives of patients suffering from rare or incurable diseases. For example, many patients with leukemia require a bone marrow transplant. This requires that someone donate their marrow (it doesn't hurt them - they can grow more). However, it is extremely hard to find someone who is an exact match. Even your own sibling only has a 25% chance of having a match! In this instance, we don't even have to clone a full human - we just need to clone some healthy cells, then replant them into the patient. This is a way to save a person's life. Some argue that cloning shouldn't be allowed because it 'isn't natural'. However, cloning happens every day in organisms all over the world. It's known as asexual reproduction. This can take many forms, but the most common is when a single-celled organism splits in half after duplicating its chromosomes. The two resulting cells (daughter cells) are exact copies of the original cell. This is an example of cloning in the natural world. Perhaps humans don't reproduce asexually, but cloning cannot be considered 'wrong' or 'unnatural' if it is found every day, in organisms you may not even think of. Thank you for your time.
Resolved: Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

I was hoping for, at the very least, a response from my opponent. I hope those reading weigh this up when assessing a victor. But several simple facts remains that I have presented, and my opponent has not even attempted to rebut. Namely; The agreed upon definition of a scientific theory is not at all compatible with the 'theory' of intelligent design, summing up: Supported by experimental evidence- No, it is common knowledge that intelligent design is supported by no empirical evidence whatsoever. Evidence 'against' evolution is not evidence for intelligent design. Predictive- No, attributing our creation to a god is an intellectual roadblock. It does nothing to advance our knowledge. Testable- No, the supernatural cannot be tested by the natural by definition. All attempts to find such things has so far failed. My opponent has only come up with his own made up 'mutual exclusion' idea which is totally incompatible with the scientific method. I have demonstrated this very clearly and my opponent hasn't made much of an attempt to argue against any of my points. The best my opponent could muster were some brain numbingly flawed attempts to disprove evolution. Of which I have not only shown all of his arguments to be scientifically invalid, but I've also highlighted how ignorant it is to attempt to 'disprove evolution' through two pieces of copy-pasted propaganda. And even if he were to prove without a reasonable doubt that evolution is as flawed as a flat earth, essentially turning back the clock on 150 years of scientific progress, this would not win him the debate for the simple fact that he hasn't shown why intelligent design is a scientific theory. He hasn't met his burden, he hasn't even came close. Ladies and gentlemen, that is, as they say...all she wrote. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Q.E.D.
Resolved: Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

I affirm that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. [Definitions] Intelligent Design- Is the assertion that the universe and its features are explained by design by an omnipotent power (such as a god). Scientific Theory- A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. [Burdens] Affirmative- Show that Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Negative- Show that Intelligent design is a scientific theory. I'll let my opponent make the first move.
Dissociative Identity Disorder is Real

I"m sorry, your now makinlg the Atheists arguement. Uh-Uh, ignoring all semblance of evidence for your own personal belief or agenda, which does not extend to research and study! Going off opinions and conjectures. Nobody can reason with the unreasonable, if you will not accept the facts, stop debating! The diagnosis is always Mental Illness .... end of discussion. However for treatment and billing purposes (cost, to treatment to payment ratio, it MUST HAVE an ICD 9 or 10 Code ... end of discussion! This requires for the SOLE PURPOSE of billing, the physicians to NAME a specific CODE identifier. This requires a process, to completion, but inevitably the (MD) reach a consensus and the illness though Mental is assigned an International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification. or ICD 9 code for billing. See previous evidence. There is ONLY a single purpose for the diagnosis of Mental Illness by reason of a specific identifier! Financial! The insurance companies refuse to shell out the same dollars for treatment of a generalized disorder ... eg Mental illness. Why? By reason of cost to payment to treatment ratio. So your argument while giving appearance of validity is not a Valid arguement. That is to specifically say, that anything other than The diagnosis OF MENTAL ILLNESS (Is not valid nor real) it IS in every way, a diagnosis CREATED TO SPECIFY for the sole pupose of billing and treatment financial caps the disease to minimize finacial losses of the insurance companies! Look. Every illness in the health care setting, is Coded! Without that code NO BILLING is possible, except under unspecified 2017/18 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code F99 Mental disorder, not otherwise specified, this is not acceptable to insurance as it allows charges which the insurance company feel are unnecessary, thereby not covered! If YOU THINK that the MD"s are doing it for any other purpose you are mistaken! They want their money, and insurance will not pay unless whatever they have can be tracked, costs averaged, and treatments regimens outlined so the Insurance company knows what treatment IS and IS NOT resaonable! Your a hoot. You can plainly SEE that your government doesn"t care about your freedoms, doesn"t care whether YOU have a Job. Won"t pay for you Hospital bills without an ICD 9 code .... and still be naive enough to think, psychologist give a rats rear, whats exactly wrong with you! They don,t but mental health unspecified, does not feed the Bulldog, in Hopitals, Clinics, MD"s and Insurance. Remember the Show Wiseguys? The part where they were sympathizing with the people who owed them? Oh the house burnt down? Blank you pay me! Oh your mom"s sick? Blank you pay me! Oh your dog got hit by a car? Blank you pay me! Hehehe .... your so crazy!
Dissociative Identity Disorder is Real

We are discussing whether or not the mental illness Dissociative Identity Disorder ever occurs, in other words is real. Not the validity of using different diagnostic terms. A diagnosis serves far more than a Financial purpose, as it also determines proper treatment and gives the person going through it a proper name for and idea of what they have. If it is all lumped in as general mental illness than it can cause issues in finding proper treatment. With DID it is often misdiagnosed as schizophrenia, but schizophrenia is entirely different, and the medication has terrible effects on those who don't need it. Were as the treatment for DID is normally trauma therapy and learning communication skills between the alters. The reason for discussing DID is because it is seen as a rather controversial diagnosis.
Dissociative Identity Disorder is Real

The validity of your debate is flawed! 1. It has no bearing upon reality. Ie Mental Illness diagnosis2. It serves only a Financial interest.3. It therefore is a pointless subject for the purpose of debate, under Health more suited to Finance section.You argue a Financial label, nothing more. Viewed from Reality Psychology is a pseudoscience, completely without merit! That is to say, anyone can determine with reasonable accuracy the mentally ill. The placement of Names serves only the purpose of Financial institutions. To LABEL an illness, for the purpose of specific charges to be incurred. Mental illness IS Real, Beyond that, it involves only the insurance industry.Hospital institutions, psychiatric clinics. Why?ICD 9/ICD 10 Coding. For payment purposes (ONLY).Dissociative Identity Disorder is RealANSWER: NO it is an ICD 10 code for financial payment purposes ONLY!Are these person"s Mentally ill? YES. It is clear by the debate topic that your inference is "Not" for the purpose of Financial debate. you in point of fact infer that the MEDICAL CONDITION is a reality. That then is False. It is not REAL in this sense as it falls squarely on the diagnosis of Mental Illness/Disorder alone.Rationale: Very few people present with any single diagnosis. The primary diagnosis IS Mental illness. For PAY purposes, it must be narrowed down for the purpose of Insurance, and Hospital charge capabilities ... nothing more! The Web's Free 2017/18 ICD-10-CM/PCS Medical Coding ReferenceICD10Data.com is a free reference website designed for the fast lookup of all current American ICD-10-CM (diagnosis) and ICD-10-PCS (procedure) medical billing codes.
National anthem changed to despacito

Reasons why I think this is a bad idea: 1: Having Hispanophone Despacito as our national anthem essentially discourages assimilation into the anglophone United States. It could help promote 2 official languages in the United States, Which is dangerous for the United States because that is how some countries break up. I did 2 debates on this, And their links are here, You should check them out: http://www. Debate. Org/debates/Should-Latinos-be-allowed-to-keep-their-culture/1/ http://www. Debate. Org/debates/Should-Latinos-be-allowed-to-speak-their-language-recreationally-within-the-USA/1/ (I forfeit this one because my WIFI broke) 2: Despacito is about love and romance, Whereas the star spangled banner celebrates those who died in a war. What deserves to represent the nation with the biggest military in the world? A song about winning a war and about maintaining freedom, Ending with " in the land of the free and home of the brave" or a song about moving slowly and about being romantic? America, While reproduction is necessary for the future of the country, Is not about love and romantic songs. It is about defending worldwide freedom, Something that it continues to this day in Korea and Japan, In Europe through NATO and it stands for truly basic human rights, Including the capitalist economy. The current star spangled banner represents this much better than Despacito. People already enjoy the star spangled banner at sporting events and Despacito is just a fad. Less singers would know how to sing the song because most people don't know the lyrics to Despacito and less people know the lyrics to Despacito then they do to the current National Anthem.
National anthem changed to despacito

Desapacito should be our new national anthem. The current national anthem is wack. It is just a dull opera song that a bunch of cruddy singers perform at sporting events and has no meaning to the citizens at all. Despacito is a song that many people recognize and would represent our diverse population as a country supporting to immigrants. Having a bilingual anthem would show that our country is open to people of different languages, Culture and style of music. In 2009, 12. 5% of our country's population were foreign born. Imaging if they spoke Spanish and could not understand the national anthem. Would they really be citizens? Or we could just make despacito the national anthem and avoid all of the drama. If despacito was the national anthem, Everyone could enjoy it and at sporting events, Even more singers could sing the anthem. Ok well i have to get back to my school work and destrying more transgenders. Goodbye and good luck beating my debate ;)
John Calvin(Pro) vs. Jacob Arminius(Con)

Correction: I am arguing the opposite of Pro. Therefore, I help up my initial statement. I never said when I will argue Pro.Actually, if there was no doubt that this was a certain type of debate, why on Earth is it possible for someone (like me) to turn it on you because of your poor resolution framing?Pro has failed in the following regards: (Here, Pro explains why he failed.)1. Con (I) was supposed to define anything if I felt like it. I didn't feel like it, therefore this is not a voting issue.2. Sure, I forfeited, big woop. This is not a voting issue because Pro extended his arguments because he's such a kind fella.3. a. Pro insults me (giving me conduct in this debate) in this entire point, claiming I am lazy and "tried to be clever." However, this is untrue, as I planned this debate to occur like this from the start, no proof? This point has just been proven subjective and will be thrown out due to the insulting nature of Pro's position.3. b. If anyone is disrespectful, it is Pro, and I am working for a win at this debate. Pro misunderstands my entire position.My position that I am not Jacob Arminius and Pro is not John Calvin remain unchallenged, extend my arguments.Oh wait... does this mean that both of our cases were entirely dropped? Clearly, if I didn't attack Pro's and he didn't attack mine directly, this debate is at a standpoint draw.Too bad no one can make arguments next round.
John Calvin(Pro) vs. Jacob Arminius(Con)

During Round one acceptance, Con said:"I will argue the opposite of Pro."Based on this claim alone, we can say with absolute certainty that Con has thrown the debate. He is NOT arguing the opposite position.This debate was (without any doubt) a positional argument between the doctrines of Arminius and Calvin.Pro has failed in the following regards:1.> Round one was not simply for acceptance. Con was supposed to use round one to make any preferred amendments to my defining terms. Con made zero adjustments, meaning: He accepted the debate terms as posted. 2.> Round two was designed for opening statements. Con has the burden of defining the nature of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. He was supposed to explain his doctrine. Instead, he forfeited by letting the clock run out.3.> I extended my arguments and allowed the opposition the opportunity to recover. Instead, he tried to be clever. The rules are quite simple. Defend the doctrines of Arminius. This was Con's disrespectful, lazy attempt to win a debate without actually working for it. My position for Calvinism remains unchallenged. Arguments extended.
John Calvin(Pro) vs. Jacob Arminius(Con)

I apologize for my forfeit, but luckily I didn't need that round anyway, as I only have 1 argument.The resolution states: "John Calvin(Pro) vs. Jacob Arminius(Con)"In debate, we always debate the resolution, correct?So, Pro is John Calvin, and Con is Jacob Arminius. I would like to point out that this debate is completely flawed, as Pro is not John Calvin, his name is (as according to his profile "-Private-". My name is David Ayad. Therefore, we can see that this debate is absolutely pointless, as the guideline for debating are that Pro much be John Calvin, and I must be Jacob Arminius. I can provide furthur evidence as to why this is proven in later rounds.
Is fortnite a problem

Fortnite like other video games can become a problem and it has become a problem in our school. All you here about is fortnite awesome and your trash at fortnite. I-phone users spend around 18 dollars a month on games and people that spend all there money on games aren't going to have enough money to pay for necessary things like food and education. Right now everyone plays it and wastes there money on it but in a couple months it will all be over and every one will be over it.
Teachers don't make enough money.

"(1) Holidays. Teachers will generally have 13 weeks per year, compared to an allowance of perhaps 4 weeks per year for most other professionals. This discrepancy - about two months' extra time off - should rightfully impact on pay. " This is true, but, many entertainers get very long periods of time off. Athletes generally get very long amounts of time off of work when their season ends, and while they do do training, they generally get most of it off. Also, many television actors only have to act for the show for a few months and can have the rest of the time off until they need to record the next season. "(2) The absence of monetary incentive to join the profession. Due to the mediocre pay scales, nobody will join teaching "for the money". People who desire to teach, generally, will be motivated by (a) a natural desire to educate, or (b) a passion for sharing their speciality subject. Hopefully this leads to a strong teaching force who are in the profession for wholesome reasons. " This is all well and fine if it applies to newly graduated teachers, but experience and degrees don't even make the pay climb a great deal, unlike being a doctor or lawyer. Also, high monetary gain may not be incentive enough for people when 12 extra years of school are involved, give or take a few years.
Teachers don't make enough money.

Teachers do make enough money. Firstly, let me state that I agree teachers do an invaluable job. Here are my arguments for why it is fair/useful that teachers are paid less than a number of other professionals. (1) Holidays. Teachers will generally have 13 weeks per year, compared to an allowance of perhaps 4 weeks per year for most other professionals. This discrepancy - about two months' extra time off - should rightfully impact on pay. (2) The absence of monetary incentive to join the profession. Due to the mediocre pay scales, nobody will join teaching "for the money". People who desire to teach, generally, will be motivated by (a) a natural desire to educate, or (b) a passion for sharing their speciality subject. Hopefully this leads to a strong teaching force who are in the profession for wholesome reasons. That's all for now.
Teachers don't make enough money.

Teachers, what would we do without them? Not a whole lot when you think about it. So why aren't they paid as much as doctors, entertainers, lawyers, etc. We would not have doctors without teachers, nor entertainers or lawyers. Without teachers the world would be, quite frankly, "in the crapper". Why then are the taught paid more than the teachers? The pupil's salaries surpass the pedagogue's. I await for my opponent, and would in advance like to thank them, and wish them good luck. Sincerely, Kat
Teachers don't make enough money.

Certainly, I agree that the job of a teacher is multi-faceted. This, however, does not separate it from the multi-skilled professions we are comparing it to. With time management skills and a reasonable expection of what can be achieved in a day, most teachers are able to come home at 5pm, using their contracted non-contact time with pupils to complete planning and marking (as you yourself have stated, the actual contact time usually accounts for around six hours, leaving the rest of the day for preparation.) "Well I live in Canada, and where I live, even with their masters, they don't get all that much of a pay raise, nor with experience." This must be an unusual situation in Canada, then. There are many opportunities for teachers in most places to move up pay scales and take on other roles and responsibilities to increase their pay.
Teachers don't make enough money.

"However, I think my point about the length of teacher holidays being relative to pay still stands, particularly when teaching is compared to jobs that (similarly) require post-graduate training of an academic nature, such as doctors/lawyers, which tend to have smaller holidays." True, but teachers have an extremely difficult job, similar to doctors and lawyers. They are educator, disciplinarian, and sometimes counselor. They have to watch over children for 6 hours of the day, not to mention how much times they work before and after those 6 hours, and the amount of correcting they have to do, which takes up most of their free time. "You wouldn't argue that a teacher should receive pay comparable to that of, say, a world-class footballer, so I feel it is redundant to make that kind of link." I would argue that actually, but that is not the matter at hand. "I disagree. Teachers have many opportunities to move onto a higher pay scale based on their experience and qualifications. Nowadays, in the UK, "excellent teacher" status can be acquired by collecting evidence of high quality teaching, which moves the teacher onto a more generous pay scale. In addition, in secondary education, roles such as head of department, head of year, and examinations officer can be sought out which add points to pay." Well I live in Canada, and where I live, even with their masters, they don't get all that much of a pay raise, nor with experience.
Teachers don't make enough money.

In response to your point about entertainers, athletes and TV actors having lots of time off... This is true. However, I think my point about the length of teacher holidays being relative to pay still stands, particularly when teaching is compared to jobs that (similarly) require post-graduate training of an academic nature, such as doctors/lawyers, which tend to have smaller holidays. That entertainers/athletes/actors (at least, those near the top of their game) are paid considerably more than teachers in addition to having long holidays is not a useful comparison, since these types of highly-paid jobs represent such a small percentage of the workforce. You wouldn't argue that a teacher should receive pay comparable to that of, say, a world-class footballer, so I feel it is redundant to make that kind of link. (Of course, you could probably persuade many that world-class footballers are overpaid, but that's a different argument.) In response to your point that the pay climb is relatively poor, even with experience and degrees... I disagree. Teachers have many opportunities to move onto a higher pay scale based on their experience and qualifications. Nowadays, in the UK, "excellent teacher" status can be acquired by collecting evidence of high quality teaching, which moves the teacher onto a more generous pay scale. In addition, in secondary education, roles such as head of department, head of year, and examinations officer can be sought out which add points to pay.
NHS being Privatised

If we Privatise the NHS, greedy people will want money. No money is earned operating the NHS unless austerity is literally quadrupled, and well, that's way too bigger burden. By having the NHS state-owned then no private company needs to be persuaded to loose money, and no one would be. The NHS would be committed, instead of having the option, to providing a top quality health service. There will be teething problems and... well... um... in a health service, you just can't let that happen.