BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hillary Clinton is not a criminal

My closing is simple. It is based off the sheer number of scandals and controversies surrounding HRC. If it was only a few things we could just mark it up to exaggerations or other such dismissals and we could even chalk it up to here-say. Using Bill Cosby and Michel Jackson as an example, both can fall in the group of it may or may not be true (and they were only accused of one thing, (multiple times)) but we are talking scandal after scandal with Hillary. She has no redeeming character traits if you read anyone who ever meet her or talked to her. She is vile, vulgar, narcissistic, and a psychopath. Yes we live in a society were you are innocent until proven guilty. However they keep refusing to indite her, even after the GJ says yes. We will keep seeing two sets of laws until she is brought to trail; a law for the Clintons and a law for the rest of us.
Hillary Clinton is not a criminal

As a final word to finish this debate on my part, I would like to remind my opponent and any other readers of Hillary Clinton's good character, which is unfortunately drenched in scandal and controversy, I hope that in some way I have at least begun to cleanse her image. Whatever result the voting period produces I will accept, and I will see as a trustworthy judgement. I also want to commend my opponent's goal to bring justice and his skill in debating. I thank him for his time and I hope we may debate again sometime.
Hillary Clinton is not a criminal

Read the quote of what Hillary Clinton said in the video; 'Nothing was marked classified at the time I was sent or received it.' This does not explicitely state nothing was marked classified, when the e-mails became public. You may see this as a phony claim, but it is entirely possible. Someone in her department may have been reviewing the e-mails and decided to mark them as classified, when Clinton did not think to. This is an entirely possible situation, and if it did occur, it makes sense that Clinton would not tell the public directly about this because she had feared the inevitable backlash from the media. I do believe it, yes. Can you provide me with a reason why she wouldn't simply have apologised? Clinton, (unlike some of her adversaries) has apologised openly to the public and not evaded responsibility. (http://edition.cnn.com...) (https://twitter.com...) I do not doubt her trustworthiness in this situation. When I read articles about defaced walls and keyboards during the 2001 transition, I came to the conclusion that Democrat-appointed White House staff committed these offences, and were unaware of the consequences. Do I Believe Hillary Clinton put stickers in drawers with the message 'Jail the thief', took off the 'W' key on keyboards? No, simply not in her character, you may call her two-faced, but read the article from this link below. (https://www.britannica.com...) I certainly do not endorse these acts of vandalism, but I don't believe the Clintons were at fault. Please quote these 'obvious bribes', I would like to analyse the allegations. In summary, Hillary is a criminal, based on twisted news articles and false analyses. I would like to ask you, once again, to read other arguments and respond to them, as you have not fulfilled your burden of proof otherwise.
Hillary Clinton is not a criminal

Okay lets go with the lying to congress: Clinton's interview before congress https://youtu.be... Gowdy interviewing Comey lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Don't blow smoke, saying she didn't know it was classified. "-It is true, the Clinton's did steal furniture and china from the White House, but they have told the public they thought these were gifts." Seriously!!!!!!!! you believe that LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Besides the stolen furniture, the Clintons and their lackeys defaced walls, stole a presidential seal dating back to the Eisenhower years, damaged furniture they deemed not expensive enough to take, and left a huge mess in the offices. They left behind offensive and derogatory statements about Bush, defaced keyboards so the letter W could not be used, stole doorknobs and other small items, and left behind prank signs as well as many other immature acts. A complete list of all the damages is in the GAO 02-360 "The White House: Allegations of Damage During the 2001 Presidential Transition," an official document of the aftermath of the Clinton Administration. http://www.gao.gov... so we can add destruction of government property to the list (18 U.S.C. " 1361) If you believed that the Clinton's made a mistake about stealing furniture and china I'm not even going to try to persuade you in the obvious bribes. In summary, Hillary is a criminal.
Hillary Clinton is not a criminal

You seem to have not responded at all to my points on her e-mail scandal, will you simply ignore that argument? -James Comey, Director of the FBI himself has denied that claim. In Whitewater, Benghazi and the E-mail hearings she had not lied to the FBI. (http://www.politico.com...) -Hillary Clinton did not lie in any E-mail congressional hearings, I assume you were referring to the Benghazi hearings. It's good to quote the law behind an accusation, but please bring up evidence that the accusation is actually true. -I've already talked about this point, please read my argument before you post yours. -It is true, the Clintons did steal furniture and china from the White House, but they have told the public they thought these were gifts. They have expressed regret and the stolen furniture has been returned, this is no longer an allegation. (http://www.factcheck.org...) -Unfortunately, any information I found on 'foreign governments bribing Clinton' came from alt-right news sources who had major bias against Clinton already. -I am going to give you a link to an article by Charity Watch, an independent organisation and the most trustworthy resource when it comes to policing charities. (https://www.charitywatch.org...) The Clinton Foundation is way above standard when it comes to charity, you really need to check your sources and analyse media from all points of view. -This quote comes from a reputable source (The Atlantic), on the Clinton IRS scandal "A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts," the newspaper reports. "If the case proceeded, Switzerland"s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement"an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS." This is what Donald Trump has done many times, and we do not consider it criminal, only an example of bad behavior. The law you quote specifically mentions 'threats by force', Clinton settled the Swiss Bank's legalities - a process which is entirely legal - , she did not threaten to harm the IRS. (http://www.theatlantic.com...) Please, do go on. It feels as if you are bringing in titles to untrustworthy Clinton criticism videos found on the darkest corners of Youtube, before you quote the law, find evidence that the scandals actually exist.
Hillary Clinton is not a criminal

Excluding she had deleted E-mails related to her job as Secretary of State, here are a few of her other crimes -Lied to FBI(18 U.S. Code " 1001 Statements or entries generally) Whitewater A(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact Transcripts: http://www.judicialwatch.org... -Lied to Congress (18 U.S. Code " 1621 - Perjury generally) Email congression hearing (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true -deleting emails and destroying bberries (18 U.S. Code " 2071) (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. -Stealing White House China and Furnature (18 U.S. Code " 641) - Public money, property or records Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof -Bribery from foreign goverenments -(18USC"201) see speaking fee's -Tax fraud with the Clinton Foundation -(18USC"7201) Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes) -IRS scandal during Bubba's presidency for sure and more than likely this last IRS scandal - (18USC"7212) Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws I could go on but these are some of her greatest hits https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Hillary Clinton is not a criminal

The two 'crimes' most usually associated with Hillary Clinton are the Benghazi terror attacks and the Email Scandal. For this round, I would like to cover the Email Scandal, which was one of the topics given the most coverage during the Presidential Election. The Federal Records Act dictates that all correspondence and information in the State Department must be stored in a government-issued phone and email. Hillary Clinton, being the Secretary of State at the time, decided to avoid these directives by using one personal email server to use for all her work. Later during her time as Secretary of State, she deleted 30,000 of her emails. When word of this reached the media, the issue spiralled into a controversy that exists today. Some Republicans had accused Clinton of violating a statute, this was that '"Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine."' If you had deleted vast amounts of classified information, you could be put in prison for a year at most. Clinton repeatedly stated that there was no classified information in the emails she had deleted. Wikileaks recently retrieved most of her emails and displayed them to the public. Of these emails, around 100 contained classified information, enough to warrant a fine. Even thought this information is public, I remain skeptical as Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks has praised Trump.
Hillary Clinton is not a criminal

Hello! Before you join this debate, I would like to go over several rules: 1. This is quite the controversial topic, so please: no swearing, cursing, rudeness and unproffesional/overly emotional behavior, to everyone. 2. Follow the format I lay out, do NOT use Round 1 for arguments. 3. Do not bring up controversies that are not commonly known by the media, if the average political journalist hasn't mentioned it, it doesn't apply. Format: Round 1: Rules and Format, NO arguments Round 2: Arguments and rebuttals Round 3: Arguments and rebuttals Round 4: Arguments and rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements and Thanks
Chickens can help us understand dinosaurs

. http://www.newscientist.com... Read this link. It explains your point on the collagen issue. but, they recognize the method is prone to being not accurate or completely off. This is the paragraph that says so : There was one glaring mistake, however. Asara's results suggested the Anolis lizard, a native of the Southeastern US, shared more relations with mammals than with alligators and dinosaurs. Such errors are common when working with limited sequences, Asara says. For your other point about chickens being similar to dinosaurs, here's my links that i have provided before: . http://answers.yahoo.com... . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... I'll requote what I've said before: The thing is, even with a lot of similarities, they may not be related. The evidences that suggest that chickens and dinosaurs are related are actually a HYPOTHESIS, meaning that it is DEDUCTIVE REASONING(GUESSING). Studying an animal of a specific family does not help you much to understand an animal of another family. To understand dinosaurs, you need dinosaurs. Even if you copy and paste things, you should read what I've just put up.
Chickens can help us understand dinosaurs

http://media.web.britannica.com... above is the picture of living relations ,here you can see the bone layout /structure of a modern chicken is almost the same . excluding varients like the tail ,long claws ,and teeth but even with all that missing the chicken is still considered a "avian dinosaur" it is the closely resembled avian animal we have alive to this day that resembles the dinosaur so yes i believe chicken can help us and not by the whole evolution theory lets forget about that right now i will show you why chickens can help us understand dinosaurs One of the major proteins found in our bones is called collagen. Collagen is special in a lot of ways. First there is a lot of it in a bone. If any amount of protein were to survive, it would be collagen. Second, it is different than a lot of other proteins. It has special things done to it by the cell that make it very stable. These chemical modifications make it easy to distinguish from other proteins. Finally, it has stayed very similar over time. This means there are changes we can find. But not so many that we can't tell what we have. So some scientists did some experiments on a particularly well-preserved T. rex thigh bone. First they demineralized it. Basically they added something (EDTA) to help turn the stone back into bone. Then they checked what was there with antibodies. Antibodies can tell whether or not a certain protein is there. They can be very specificï¿½some recognize just one part of a protein from one type of plant or animal. When scientists added antibodies that recognized chicken collagen to the demineralized bone, the antibodies stuck. This told them that there was collagen there. And that it was similar enough to the chicken protein to be recognized. OK but how much like a chicken is it? To figure this out, the scientists decided to look right at the protein. They used a technique called mass spectrometry (mass spec). In mass spec, a protein is chewed up in a specific way and the pieces identified. Scientists can then compare the chewed up protein to known proteins and see how related they are. When they did this, they found that the T. rex collagen was most similar to chicken collagen. Next were newts and frogs. Others were much less related. So chickens came from dinosaurs, right? Well, maybe. Unfortunately, the scientists didn't have alligator or crocodile collagen to compare it to. Once we see how related these beasts are to a T. rex, we'll have a better feel for how related a chicken and a dinosaur are. One thing is for sure, a chicken and a dinosaur are very related. And now that we have this technique, I am sure lots of other collagens will be figured out. Then we'll be able to tell whether the dinosaur came before the chicken. Or its egg. http://genetics.thetech.org... this is one source i have i have many sources on this subject if anybody would like some links let me know or if anyone would like to discuss the topic further
Chickens can help us understand dinosaurs

What I'm saying is that because chickens and dinosaurs are too different from each other, and they are most probably are not related to each other, so yes, I'm saying that chickens can't help us understand dinosaurs. It's like studying the facial expressions of apes. If they "smile", they are actually just baring their teeth, giving the message: "Don't mess with me". We humans smile because we are happy. Thus, chickens can't help us understand dinosaurs
Chickens can help us understand dinosaurs

i would like to start off by saying that i never agree to chickens evolving from a dinosaur so that is not relevant in a sense . i simply just asked if " CHICKENS CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND DINOSAURS" your saying that chickens being related to dinosaurs is just a theory . that is true but that is not what i care about . i simply want to know "can chickens in anyway help us understand dinosaurs " .. can they?
Chickens can help us understand dinosaurs

1st point: The differences between chickens and dinosaurs http://www.independent.co.uk... This is the first result of the Google search. After I read it, I started to question the qualifications of the scientists. Even if the chickens have evolved from dinosaurs, chickens and dinosaurs are already a far cry from each other. What makes you think that the experiment was a success? Let me give you an example. http://www.theguardian.com... We have permanent breasts and apes don't. Apes only have full breasts only after giving birth. Even with our DNA as humans being almost the same as apes, we differ from apes greatly. Talk about chickens and dinosaurs! Evolution has changed dinosaurs, almost completely altering them. The experiment result can be compared to a person often carrying a heavy load on his back. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... Throughout the years, his bone structure changes, making him stooped. The prosthetic tail is most probably the same thing. 2nd point: The possibility of chickens related to dinosaurs Yes, chickens may have evolved from dinosaurs, but even that may is a big may. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.newscientist.com... The links above states the evidence of the evolution. However, in the second link, they recognize the method is prone to being not accurate or completely off. In this wikipedia page : http://en.wikipedia.org... , it says that chickens and dinosaurs may be related because they have a lot of similarities. But, I have this link : http://answers.yahoo.com... The evidence for one of the provided example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu... The thing is, even with a lot of similarities, they may not be related. The evidences that suggest that chickens and dinosaurs are related are actually a HYPOTHESIS, meaning that it is DEDUCTIVE REASONING(GUESSING). I'll present my other points later in other rounds.
Raising the top tax rate to 70% is a good idea

I for the record think the rich should pay more in taxes, A lot more. I am also in support of progressive taxation. I also aknowledge that when the top tax rate was 90% or 75% our economy was great just great, I admit that. My objection is that capital is very mobile in todays world, All you have to do is push a button. To raise the top rate so high in the present is a disaster of an idea for our economy. The highest rate in todays world i could find was 61% in Portugal https://www. Investopedia. Com/incometax/which-countries-have-highest-taxes-high-incomes-0/ we are well down the list and taxes should be raiesed on the wealthy Incementally INCREMENTALLY a raise of 5 or 10% and then study its efect on the economy, If it husrts the economy too badly well then we might bring it down, But 70% thats too big a risk, Its like playing russian roulette
Abortion

==Extensions== Extend all arguments from my last speech, I dont want to write them all again(I'm lazy) ==AC 3== 1. CPS Bad --> She gives no warrants --> No service is perfect, but that doesnt justify killing an innocent. What is needed is better CPS agents. --> Extend the argument that parents need to be screened first 2. Adoption Bad --> Again no warrants --> Alternative: ripping that baby from a womb with medical instruments, burning that child while in the womb, using extreme suction to remove the baby, and in some cases stabbing the child in the back of the neck and ripping its brains apart. --> If adoption is utilized like my advocacy is, problems can be mitigated --> And I am adopted, so I can speak with some knowledge of the system. IT is rare that kids enter poor and unloving homes. Its be idiotic for a couple to go through the process and then disregard the child. ==Voting Issues== 1. Roe V. Wade Analysis => Beckwith Evidence (child is biologically living) => Protection from constitution => Right to life outweighs nebulus claim of body rights of my opponent 2. She has no offense since she conceded the comparative analysis framework, thus the only offense left is my case which was conceded.
Abortion

You being a father one day has nothing to do with my right or any other womans right as a woman, and as you state CPS will solve the issue..how do you know CPS is capable? I my self have had experience with CPS and i can state that they dont always fix everything properly, for they have so much to deal with. Have you ever thought about how adoption might affect a childs life...it could hurt them greatly if they learn that they are adopted because their mother didnt want them or couldnt take care of them.
Abortion

==AC== 1. "Despite all of the above that you state an abortion should be legally be a womans right" --> No warrant provided why this would be the case --> Extend the legal analysis I made, it is the framework for the round so any argumt that doesn't fit into this framework is irrelevant in the round --> Implied concession of all the NC. This means (1) biological life = protection of life and (2) an embyo, fetus, etc are all biological forms of human life and (3) by the Constitution abortion should be made illegal 2. Her body, her choice --> She already imlicitly conceded the legal framework so by extension the government can regulate her body if it infries on the right to life of the fetus. 3. How does it affect you? --> I am a member of society, and hopefully I will be a father someday. --> I am a rational and moral agent with the ability to deduce X debated actions 4. Even if the rape statitic is true, other reasons can be justified --> No other options given --> Extend evidence which states the vast majority of abortions are for social reasons and dont have any other major implicated justification --> Cross-apply arguments from the NC. Life outweighs, abotion = violation of the right to life 5. Adoption is bad --> She clearly didnt read the evidence I presented. The evidence indicates that there are huge lists of couples waiting to adopt, but they arent being utilized by pregnant women. Since it is possible that the adoption alternatiuve is one that can b used, but isnt being utlizied, doesnt justify abortion. --> Extend argument that it is illogical to say that we can kill said kids afterwards to make their lives better --> The argument that they might be in bad homes is fualty for two reasons: (1) it can eaily be solved by CPS, and (2) before adoptions parents musbe screened throughly by a sociologist. 6. It is "ignorancy" which has made your opinion --> I have throughly researched the issue of abortion and came to the opinion that through legal precedent and understanding, abortion should be made illegal in cases bsides threatening the life of the mother. --> This is an ad hominem attack, quite rude if I do say so myself --> Please learn to use correct English when trying to prove my "ignorance" not "ignorancy" ==NC== She has conceded the Roe v. Wade Analysis and the Beckwith evidence. At this point it is impossible for her to win any major offense epseicaly inlight of the conceded legal framework (comparative analysis and consitutionality).