BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hillary Clition Would be the worst president!

You state that, "Bush is a ok pres". This is categorically false. Bush has set the bar so low that you could randomly pick somebody off the street and ask them to be president and they would do better. Noticing how horrific somebody would need to be to wrest that title from Bush makes the debate topic require that much more evidence. You then follow up, "if you were the pres when they blew up the towers you have sent our troops over there also..." -- By "over there" I assume you mean Iraq. No. Categorically I would not. Osama Bin Laden was chiefly responsible for 9/11 he resided in Afghanistan. There is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Picture if you would, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor we declare war on Australia. -- That's as much sense as Iraq makes. You further argue, "hillary is horrible for pres b/c she has no idea what to do" -- She doesn't? If she gets in a jam, I'm sure her husband could help her out. Bill Clinton was president for the better part of the 1990s. She has been part of government in some capacity or another for about three decades. She's the prepared of any of the politicians running this election. Further, one cannot draw from an inference of qualifications a clear determination of result. The remainder of your argument is a poorly-spelled sexist tirade about how female leaders would make us appear more "girly". I'm almost at a loss as to how to respond. Women have proven themselves capable leaders. Simply being female is not a logical argument, in fact it's a genetic fallacy. Further, I am not convinced that appearing caring and nurturing in the eyes of other countries would be a bad thing. Under Bush we've lost a lot of respect in the world, and a clear sign that we're taking another direction would be highly recommendable. Of the candidates running today she is the most qualified and quite easily the most moderate. Other than attacking her gender in flawed arguments, you've done little to meet the burden of providing the requisite backing for your case. You still haven't met the burden of proof. Perhaps in round three.
Hillary Clition Would be the worst president!

Bush is a ok pres if you were the pres when they blew up the towers you have sent our troops over there also... * also hillary is horrible for pres b/c she has no idea what to do and also that if we have a lady pres every other country would look at us like were weak... * i say this b/c they r going to think if we let a girl run our country that we r a bunch of little girls.. that is y she is the worst candidate for pres
Hillary Clition Would be the worst president!

* There's no such individual as "Hillary Clition." * George W. Bush already is the worst president. The bar is pretty low. * Having a First Gentleman whose done the job already, isn't a downside; he did the job quite well. * Huckabee wants to amend the constitution to include the Bible, how does that not qualify as worse? * McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, how does that not qualify as worse? * Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey, is running on a platform of impaling terrorists, how does that no qualify as worse? You have suggested no reason to believe the topic, other suggesting that menstruation causes thermonuclear war in addition to cramping. However there are a large number of female leaders and a noted lacking of people blowing themselves up because it was their time of the month. Ireland, President Mary McAleese New Zealand, Prime Minister Helen Clark Finland, President Tarja Halonen The Philippines, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Mozambique, Prime Minister Luisa Diogo Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel Liberia, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf Chile, President Michelle Bachelet Switzerland, President Micheline Calmy-Rey India, President Pratibha Patil
Legalization of Suicide

An example of misunderstanding about suicide is "Psychiatric symptoms get better … But there are many things you can do to help relieve these symptoms". [s1]. Again, there are other options and it can be a very quick and ill thought through. Death anxiety and obsessing over death/suicide can also be confused with suicide and has a destructive circularised nature in which you obsess, get depressed and so on, "Death anxiety is, in short, an abnormal fear of dying". [s2]. (Sources in comments)
Legalization of Suicide

Pro has forfeited the round due to a period of only 5 minutes to debate. Suicide for an indivdual isn't the only option. There is counselling, anti-depressants and rehabilitation centres. If suicide is a serious enough issue for someone then society hasn't given or offered enough support for that individual. It is natural for human beings to feel depressed from time to time, but there should be other options and there must be investigation into why people resort to such extreme measures.
In a battle between Ann Coulter and Rachel Maddow, Ann Coulter would win.

I thank my U_E for her quick turnaround, but I fear that Ann may yet lay the smackdown on Maddow. My opponent contends three points: (1)Rachel Maddow is Ann Coulter's intellectual superior, (2)Rachel Maddow is Ann Coulter's physical superior, (3)Ann Coulter is severely unloved. Contention 1: Maddow is the Brain, Coulter is Pinky ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Maddow is indeed very smart. Surprisingly, Coulter is *also* very smart. [1] She is an honors graduate of Cornell University and the University of Michigan law school. Both are very impressive accomplishments. It is clear that Coulter does not get a pass for being actually stupid. Hers is an obfuscating stupidity, beneath which dark and terrible plots churn, like butter in an old time butter-churning thing. Coulter says whatever she wants not because she doesn't think, but because she doesn't care. Whatever trouble she gets herself in, she knows she can get herself out of. Contention 2: Maddow is Clara Kent, Coulter is Leslie Luthor ---------------------------------------------------------------- My opponent argues that Rachel Maddow is very strong. Maddow has admitted to having been a jock and a loner, a strong combination for a punk street fighter. [2] I could see her pulling some nasty tricks in an out and out brawl. She also kind of has that bobbing and weaving motion that lets you know that she knows how to prepare for and roll with hits as they come. See Vid 1. http://www.youtube.com... None-the-less, Coulter is not completely out of her element here. For one thing, Coulter did dodge the pie. That's speaks well for her agility. Also, she has an iron jaw (knowing Ann she probably kept it). No uppercuts. She is also tough enough to go man to woman against John McCain, and while she didn't win, he did need to drop a ton of bombs on her. See Vid 2. http://www.youtube.com... Contention 3: Nobody loves her … that just makes her more dangerous ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many individuals have had major career changes due to the power of the anger and hatred residing in them. Coulter is strong with the dark side. Really strong. You can tell because the dark side warps your face and gives you deep pitted eye sockets, and Ann has those in spades. Also, while no one born naturally may love her, I have already submitted that she has a clone army. Basically, Ann Coulter is the emperor. [3] That's a level of insidiousness I don't think Rachel can take out with just a punch or two. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]Put a black hood on Ann and compare: http://www.hecklerspray.com... vs http://charlespaolino.files.wordpress.com...
In a battle between Ann Coulter and Rachel Maddow, Ann Coulter would win.

I will present my arguments first, then refute my opponent's. Definitions Battle - 2: a combat between two persons [1] It can be seen anytime Ann Coulter appears on any T.V. show, commentates in any sound bite etc., she is insane. She makes not one valid, rational point. [2] Therefore, in a battle of wits she would fall helplessly victim to Rachel Maddow. To be quite frank, once Coulter's mouth is removed she has been rendered useless in any way, shape or form as most of American knows, she does indeed not have a brain. In addition to this, despite the fact that they may think she is attractive, most people do not like her. Therefore, Maddow would have mob mentality on her side. Once the world knew that the lesbian pundit who dresses like a third grader [3] was going to kick some Coulter a$$ most likely the entire country (with the exception of Sarah Palin) would be joining up to help. In addition to the aforementioned, Ann Coulter purposefully makes ridiculous, ignorant statements just for the sake of doing so. [4,5,6] Unfortunately for Ms. Coulter, she does not realize that the world does not really care about her opinion, she is here just for our enjoyment and boy is she fun to make fun of. Now onto the actual reasons as to why Rachel Maddow would beat Coulter. * Rachel Maddow and Coulter are roughly the same height (5'11 to 6')[7,8], therefore, any punches thrown by Maddow would land square to whichever body part she intended to hit on Coulter as Coulter is too stupid to move. * Maddow is presumably stronger than Coulter. [9] At the age of 47, Ann Coulter, as noted in the jpg displays some pretty sizable arm flab. As we all know, or as we all should know, Rachel Maddow is a butch lesbian (now, I am just speaking for other butch lesbians) therefore she must have some sort of upper body strength and could probably beat Coulter with a couple of punches. *Maddow is intellectually more superior than Ann Coulter. Rachel Maddow received a Rhodes Scholarship, a B.A. from Stanford, and a DPhil from Oxford. She also can defend her points with cold hard fact, and knows that Canada did indeed, not send troops to Vietnam. Therefore she would beat Coulter in the brain department. Despite the fact that Ann Coulter is the nastiest Conservative pitbull, ever, Rachel Maddow might be the man to finally put her in her place. Many thanks to Lexicaholic. Sources: [1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] - http://www.anncoulter.com... [3] - http://www.rachelmaddow.com... [4] - http://www.youtube.com... [5] - http://www.youtube.com... [6] - http://www.youtube.com... [7] - http://www.whosdatedwho.com... [8] - http://www.mademan.com... [9] - http://aviewofthec.files.wordpress.com...
In a battle between Ann Coulter and Rachel Maddow, Ann Coulter would win.

Rachel Maddow is undeniably a bucket of awesome. Unfortunately, Ann Coulter is a ruthless attack dog by comparison. In a straight (well, half-straight) battle between the two, Coulter would win. Coulter is so extreme even Bill O'Reilly doesn't handle her. [1] How nuts do you have to be to hold that distinction? We've already seen the terrible devastation that a handful of zealots can do to the American public. I am talking, of course, about right wing conservative 'Christians.' See the videos -- look at 'em go! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Anyway, the point is, Anne feels that she is 'perfected,' and not afraid to prove it. [2] Ann is clearly a zealot. Zealots are far more dangerous than sane, rational folks. Rachel has one hope, I must admit. Anne is notoriously weak against pies. [3] Rachel is funny, and funny people like pies, so I assume she may have some on her. I'm just not sure if there are enough pies in the world to keep Ann down. Also, she has legions of Republican neocon fans that think she is hot. [4] I believe that she breeds them in a laboratory, splicing stem cells to create new life. Ann, I'm certain, only uses unperfected stem cells, because they don't count. Finally, it needs to be mentioned that Ann is that special type of evil that keeps rising from the dead. Like Jason. Despite losing her spot in several publications, [5] and her conservative 'credibility,' [6] Ann keeps on spewing whatever she can with that steel trap of hers. [7] [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.foxnews.com... [3] http://ebonytamu.wordpress.com... [4] http://answers.yahoo.com... [5] http://www.google.com... [6] http://gayrights.change.org... [7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
In a battle between Ann Coulter and Rachel Maddow, Ann Coulter would win.

To reaffirm my points (1) Maddow is smarter than Coulter I do understand that Ann Coulter is smart, I do understand that she went through a lot of schooling. However, Rachel Maddow has a sense of coherency about her when she speaks, and most of what she says makes sense. Don't get me wrong, I love them both for separate reasons, I just believe Maddow makes more sense when she opens her mouth. Coulter is smart, if she wasn't she wouldn't make incredibly outlandish statements just to fight with Bill Maher. Not to mention Ann Coulter got slapped down by Joy Behar and Whoppi Goldberg on the View, if you can't handle either of them you probably can't handle Rachel Maddow. [1] (2) Rachel Maddow would undeniably beat Ann Coulter. Though Coulter dodged a pie, she saw it coming. If Rachel Maddow laid an intense beating down onto Ann Coulter, Maddow would be victorious. Rachel Maddow has already beat and infuriated Coulter, this occurred when Coulter was bumped from the "Today Show" and ultimately replaced by Maddow. [2] Finally, I believe Maddow would lay the beat down on Coulter because she is younger, stronger and gayer. (Coulter's just bitter since their breakup) (3) Nobody Loves Ann Coulter I agree that sometimes hate makes people better but I doubt that is the case with Ann Coulter. The hate becomes a patronizing hate and it just leads to a vicious cycle of angry. Rachel Maddow is on the dark side too, she's gay... Didn't you know there's a listserv? In summation, Rachel Maddow is superior to Ann Coulter in most arenas. Rachel Maddow would beat Ann Coulter to a pulp due to her physical finesse and strong - arm brute force. This is also something people would want to watch --> See Economic Recession. I thank Lexicaholic for a fun and amusing debate. Vote CON. Source: [1] - http://answers.yahoo.com... [[Just for fun]] [2] - http://newsbusters.org...
Black people in inner city neighborhood should have no rational fear of the police

However I would like to make the argument that if an African american wants to express his rights to the second amendment, and he is stopped and Frisked, he is more likely to go to jail than if a white person had a gun. The African american person can't say to the officer "Don't worry, I'm not going to shoot anybody, this is just to express my right to bear arms". The police would never believe this person, unless he was white. Furthermore I would like to bring up the issue of Donald Trump once again. He has constantly refereed to the African american community as "The Blacks" which has a negative connotation of being violent idiots. He has said that they're killing each other and that they literally live in hell. Not to mention, Donald Trump was sued multiple times for not renting apartments to African Americans and has discriminated against black people in his career. If people are actually willing to nominate a man that has had such a huge pattern of racism towards African Americans shows that our society has moved in such a racist direction.
Black people in inner city neighborhood should have no rational fear of the police

My opponent brings out very good points that I do not disagree with. It is clear that many Black people have been treated unfairly as they go about their business. However, the argument at hand is whether or not this unfair treatment by law enforcement translates into real harm for the law abiding citizen. I maintain that law abiding Blacks should never have a fear of being killed by the police (even though they may be treated unfairly at times; stop and frisk was a perfect example). Specific cases: Remember James Blake. James was the professional tennis player who was in New York for the U.S. Open. He was misidentified as a perp and was viciously tackled by NYPD officers. When was his funeral? The answer is there was no funeral because James Blake was not killed. Upon being tackled, instead of fighting with the officers and talking about all the rights he had (and he did have rights), he did the smart thing. He complied with the commands of the police and was not injured. Blake said that he listened and did everything the cops told him to do (www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/us/tennis-james-blake). Why is Blake alive (and now very rich), while others like Garner, Bland and Grey are not. The difference is that he behaved properly and did not pose a threat to police. The majority of Black people in inner-city neighborhoods are proper behaving law abiding citizens. Why would they fear a violent confrontation with police? They should not fear because a confrontation with a law abiding citizen posing no threat to police hardly ever ends in death to either party. Remember Charles Kinsey, he was the Black social worker who was shot by police as he sat in the street trying to calm an autistic man. Although Kinsey posed no threat, he was still shot while on the ground with his hands up. Kinsey had every right to scream about being violated; however' Kinsey is alive today simply because he did not escalate the problem. He was behaving like a law abiding citizen who understood that there is a remedy for the outrageous conduct of the police in this case (http://abcnews.go.com...). Suffice it to say, Kinsey is not only alive, but very rich from the law suits he easily won). I restate, Black people (myself included) should not succumb to the rhetoric of groups like BLM which falsely indicates that all black people are in danger of being killed by police simply because of the color of their skin. This premise is clearly unsustainable.
Black people in inner city neighborhood should have no rational fear of the police

I am glad that we can have a discussion on this reasonable topic. I particularly like how we are going to be focusing on the Law abiding African Americans. I would however like to bring up some political evidence for this part. When republican Canaanite Donald J Trump (who I hate for being racist) said that coin caprinick should "Leave this country" because he took a knee during the national anthem. Also the fact that fans who disliked his kneeling of the national anthem would burn his jersey and post a video of it. There was even a few posts on twitter suggesting that Caprinick should be shot. This is clear evidence that people have such a fear of African Americans that they would arrest and search them more often. Another point I would like to bring up is a lack of trials from the officers who killed these people. I have not herd of any trials in the news. The Case is either that i don't listen to enough news (And I watch and listen to a lot) Or that the police aren't taking the responsibility for their actions and biases. I hope this was helpful to understanding my point.
Black people in inner city neighborhood should have no rational fear of the police

Thank you for accepting my challenge. The first critical statement that should be addressed is "videos show solid proof that people are being shot for being black". Is this an accurate assessment? I have not seen proof that people are being shot simply for being Black. Was Eric Garner (from Staten Island new York) choked to death simply because he was Black? The video clearly shows that he died as a result of being restrained due to his resisting arrest (http://www.nbcnewyork.com...). Was the cop convicted? - He is currently on desk duty making massive overtime while Eric Garner and his rights are buried six feet under ground. Would Garner have even been in the news if he would have complied with police as we were all raised to do from pre-school age? Was Michael Brown shot simply because he was Black? Brown was arrested after committing an assault in a convenience store. Was he simply a citizen walking down the street minding his own business? What about Freddy Grey, who was arrested for carrying a knife. What happen to those cops in his incident - All acquitted. What about Sandra Bland who was pulled over by police for a MINOR traffic infraction? Did she stay in her car and comply with the requests of the officer? NO! She turned the situation into an escalating conflict (http://highline.huffingtonpost.com...). Black people who obey the law and obey the commands of law enforcement officers are rarely subjected to this type of treatment. Again, it is unreasonable that Black people who are law abiding citizens to fear the police. The argument that cops indiscriminately use Black men for target practice is unsustainable. Am I saying that law abiding Black people are never targets for attacks by police? No. However, consider what happens when a law abiding citizen behaves properly under attack circumstances. These are just some of the many examples of how Black people lost their lives to police when they did not act properly. Instead of talking about how many rights you have, isn't it prudent to first comply and behave properly so that if the arrest was made against procedure, you are at least alive to remedy the situation and possibly receive compensation (without having BLM protest over your dead body). My opponent stated that it was observed on video how Blacks have been "searched in a manner that is unacceptable". If one knows that it is possible to seek remedy if they were treated unfairly, why resist and risk being shot by police. My opponent is now in the difficult situation to show (hopefully by a preponderance of the evidence) that a Black person behaving reasonably in society should have a rational fear of being hurt by the police. The only way this premise could be sustainable is that the majority of Black people in the inner city do not behave reasonably and lawfully. If my opponent believes that this is the case, then my opponent does not know the Black community.
Black people in inner city neighborhood should have no rational fear of the police

I would like to respectfully disagree with my opponent. I think that the media is not just stirring up fear but reporting on the racial tensions. Not to mention these videos of African Americans show solid proof that people are being shot for being black. And I'm just covering police Shootings. I am not going to go on about "Patting" just because they're black. I have seen videos of African American men who have been searched in a manner that is unacceptable for equality between all races. Argument found from Time magazine article "black lives matter" and Daily Show's segment on Frisking. Sorry if i'm bad at citation.
Black people in inner city neighborhood should have no rational fear of the police

The news media has done an excellent job in convincing our society that police are inherently violent and racist and participates in an organized scheme to eliminate black people. As an African American citizen of the United States, I am dismayed how organizations like Black Lives Matter and the media continue to build on this MYTH. I proposed that there is no valid reason statistically or otherwise that would sustain the argument that Black people are facing systematic genocide by our nation's law enforcement agencies. I challenge anyone to give a VALID argument on why I, as a Black man, ought to be generally afraid of the police.
If someone is suffering from a terminal illness they should have the right to euthanasia

Yes, my arguement may flawed but I know there are many variation of the dying process . This incluudes physicans assisted suicide or a do not resitate compliance order. Perhaps you missed my point, or I was not that clear on my position. Please allow me to reinterate my debate opposition. I think one should be given ethanasia to die ,especially, if they are suffering and feeling like they are burden. With this in mind, terminally ill patients should not be a paycheck for someone when they no longer have the desire to exist.