BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the US give aid to countries in the Middle East

I will assume then that my formatting is fine.Round one was meant only for acceptance and not for new arguments, so I would ask my opponent to simply reiterate his Round 1 post for round two, refraining from rebutting any of my arguments.The truth is Middle Eastern countries do not appreciate our efforts there. This can clearly be seen in Egypt. "U.S. military aid to Egypt totals over $1.3 billion annually. In addition, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has provided over $28 billion in economic and development assistance to Egypt since 1975." (1) On top of this President Barack Obama exerted his influence on the removal of Hosni Mubarak in 2011. How do they repay us? What signs of gratitude do we recieve? In fact most Egyptians don't even want aid from us (2).Even after the Arab Spring corrupt governments dominate the landscape of the Middle East. This means that not only does America get a bad rep for getting involved in areas we don't belong, most of the money we giv eto these countries are never seen by those who need it. We line the pockets of the corrupt while the poor are fed lies about America's motives.1. http://www.state.gov...;2. http://www.gallup.com...
Should the US give aid to countries in the Middle East

Introduction:I recently read a debate regarding this and in a word it sucked. However, I feel it is an interesting idea. I have limited it to the Middle East since with such a broad range of examples I felt that limitations were necessary.Format:It has been a while since I did a formal debate (probably a year or so), if you have any comments or suggestions regarding definitions/formatting please state them at the beginning of the first round.R 1 : AcceptanceR 2 : Opening argumentsR 3 : Rebuttals/defense (no new arguments)R 4 : defense/conclusion (no new arguments)Definitions:aid: economic, technical, or military aid given by one nation to anotherfor purposes of relief and rehabilitation, for economic stabilization,or for mutual defense. http://dictionary.reference.com..."countries in the middle East": http://en.wikipedia.org...Lets have a good clean debate
Semi-Automatic Weapons

I'll answer the first question about making killing easier more beneficial, being as I live and work on a farm and I have coyotes trying to kill calves most farmers and ranchers will tell you an AR-15 is the gun for the job. It makes it easier to protect ourselves and livestock. Also if someone is breaking in I am going to make sure they don't walk out alive, especially if they are threatening me or the life of a loved one. Most people won't be able to fire hundreds of rounds a second without the help of modifications, but it all goes back to how you want to use those modifications. The only place I see those coming to use is if you want to have fun at the range or whatever. Pistols are not going to be limited on ammo you can buy just as big of magazines as any ar-15 magazines, and either way you have to take breaks to reload no matter the weapon. They only way the modifications become dangerous is when they person using them decides to use them for bad. Pistols can still do damage, look at Columbine, did they have ar-15s, no. As for bolt action rifles many people don't think about it but bullets don't stop when they hit one person they keep going through especially with bigger rounds. As for your comment about the Parkland shooting he could've used a mini 14, which is the same caliber of bullets and in the same size of magazines as an ar-15, it would've ended the same way. If a person wants to cause harm they will. Not everyone has access to those guns, that's what background checks are for. To keep bad people from buying any weapons. I would most likely back adding something to background checks that cover a more mental aspect.
Semi-Automatic Weapons

(Please rephrase the last sentence, what are you accomplishing? Are you somehow accomplishing rapid machine gun like fire with a finger that can press a trigger that fast?) What do you mean making killing easier is beneficial, except in the military? What will a civilian need with a gun that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute? (With various modifications) Unless we're being invaded, there's only one real need for the amount of people you're able to kill. And a pistol, semi automatic or not, is limited on ammo, making it to where you have to take breaks in your firing to reload much more frequently. I should've mentioned the danger of modifications. But seriously, with a bolt action rifle, you cannot wound hundreds of people in less than 9 minutes. (Las Vegas shooting) It can't get out that many bullets, and is what I would be okay with having. Yes, it will do more damage to the person individually, but to a crowd of people, not so much. The people in the Las Vegas shooting who were shot and weren't killed will have to deal with a bullet or two inside their system. How would the Las Vegas shooting be different if he didn't have mods and multiple other military style weapons, how would the Parkland Shooting have gone if that guy didn't have an AR-15? Lastly, how many people are trained to use a gun properly, and are regularly checked and disciplined? That's why the Second Amendment includes the phrase, "A well regulated militia." Not just anyone, but an organized group, like the Police, the Army, or the Marines. These are people that are regularly checked, regularly trained, and they keep the public safe. We can't just have any person who can pass a background check and has a little bit of gun experience roam wild with a weapon that can kill dozens of people in a short amount of time. I'm not saying take every gun away from the public, I'm just saying that not just anyone should have those kinds of weapons. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com... https://www.cbsnews.com... https://www.quora.com...
Semi-Automatic Weapons

I will agree that semi-automatics do make killing easier, in some cases it is beneficial, but in the wrong hands it is detrimental. In your second paragraph you mentioned bump stocks, using the correct technique you can accomplish essentially the same thing they do, all it takes is about 10 minutes or practice. Your "fact" in your second paragraph is completely false considering most pistols are semi-automatic and I'm guessing by regular rifle you mean a bolt action. Most bolt action rifles are a higher caliber and can do more damage with 1 shot over a lot longer distance compared to a regular .223 or 5.56 ar-15 round. Considering your proposal about leaving the semi and fully automatic weapons to the military, pretty much all fully automatics are already in the hands of the military I don't know what your proposal consists of, other than taking practically all firearms other than bolt action rifles, revolvers, single shot guns, and pump shotguns out of the hands of the hands of law abiding citizens. If law abiding gun owners were a problem it would be a bad situation, considering in 2012 there were 327,000,000 legally owned and obtained guns in America.
Semi-Automatic Weapons

I saw your argument, thatnebraskafarmer, and you did make the point of mental health issues. I definitely agree with having background checks on people like that. But what I don't agree with is your stance on keeping Semi-Automatic weapons entirely. What do you need with a semi-automatic weapon? The point of having a Semi-Automatic weapon is to shoot more bullets than a pistol or regular rifle at once, assisting in what guns help people do best. Kill. In the Las Vegas Shooting, hundreds were injured and dozens died that day by his semi-automatic weapons with many modifications like the bump stock. And you may say, along with others, that guns don't kill people people kill people. But the fact is, is that you can't kill 58 people in 9 minutes with a pistol, or regular rifle. So I propose that we leave the semi-automatic and automatic weapons to the military, trained men and women who know how to use it safety, and are in a controlled, disciplined, environment.
Semi-Automatic Weapons

First off, don't you think a warning shot would be enough to scare someone off your property, or scare an animal away from your livestock? I don't know of many killers that go around to people's country homes just to kill them. Most of these these situations you speak of are hypothetical and are without sources other than personal experience. I agree that you need something to protect your livestock and your family, but not a military style weapon. Plus, those kinds of "Pistols" that can shoot at those kinds of speeds and have that magazine capabilities are pistols because of the legal definition. Numerous states and districts ban high capacity magazines such as California, Hawaii, and D.C. If you don't know, just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right or logical. It used to be legal to count a slave as 60% of a human, and recently, it was legal to sell people's debt crashing the DOW. (A rebuttal to your mini-14 argument: Yeah, you can do the same thing with a mini-14 but with more damage than an ar-15, but your point falls short when the mini-14 is also a semi-automatic rifle, one of the firearms I'm calling to ban.) If you can't fire hundreds of rounds without the help of modifications, and the only way you can see them coming to use is fun, then you shouldn't have them. Unless it's going to the military or other controlled environment, then they should be banned. A lot of these guns are just remakes of M-16, and other military firearms that keep finding loopholes around gun control laws. Modifications is one of them, and by stopping the sale and usage of them, we lower the body count in possible future shootings. On your Columbine argument, they didn't have AR-15s, but they did have an automatic weapon. (Intratec TEC-DC9) Which is more dangerous than an AR-15, considering it's a sub-machine gun. And lastly, background checks definitely need to still be a main component in gun control, I agree with you on that. Sadly though, background checks don't always work. The shooter in Las Vegas passed present background check laws, and had no sign of mental instability. https://www.nbcnews.com... https://www.nytimes.com... https://www.tactical-life.com... (AK pistol example.) http://lawcenter.giffords.org... https://www.quora.com... Guns of Columbine https://riversong.wordpress.com... https://www.hi-pointfirearms.com...
What has happened to Journalism

Okay, so my opponent forfeited the last round as well. However, I will provide a couple of recent examples of reporting that do not conform or fit in the celebrity-saturated bent of news. Examples against Pro: (1) James Risen (The New York Times) I will keep this brief but I would include James Risen at the The New York Times for his reporting on Operation Merlin, where the CIA provided flawed nuclear weapons blueprints to a Russian intermediary that would provide the faculty plans to Iranian scientist working on their alleged nuclear weapons program. However, the problem was the flaws were so easy to detect that the Russian contact immediately spotted them and pointed it out to Iranian scientists, thereby aided Iran rather than thwarting their progress. Not only, did the CIA’s plans backfire but instead of admitting the mistake, the government immediately pursued charges against Risen starting around 2008, only to be dropped in the last several months. Examples against Pro (2): Glenn Greenwald & Laura Poitras reporting of the NSA: Greenwald and Poitras shared the Pulitzer Prize for their exposés in the worldwide electronic surveillance program, and the leaking of documents pertaining to Edward Snowden. Recently, Poitras’s documentary won the Oscar for Best Documentary feature for her Citizenfour documenting her and Greenwald’s initial rendezvous with Snowden in Hong Kong and the subsequent backlash by the US government and other powerful organizations. There is very little to add because their reporting on Snowden blanketed the news cycle for almost an entire year and continued this year with Citizenfour. Examples against Pro (3): Matt Taibbi’s financial reporting Taibbi has continues to write several overlooked pieces into the fine points behind the 2009 financial crisis as well as the continued chicanery endemic to US and international markets. Notable or infamous among his pieces—depending on your perspective—was “The Great American Bubble Machine” published in the July 2009 edition of Rolling Stone magazine. For those familiar with Taibbi, you will undoubtedly recall his pithy personification of Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. ” Anyway, there is really not much for voters to assess given the twin forfeitures of Pro. I have meet the standard needed to win just by making arguments every round and providing a modicum of effort.
What has happened to Journalism

Even though my opponent forfeited the last round but it is incumbent to make a couple of points to justify a victory. Print Today = Same as Yesterday [First Argument] First, I sympathize with the general precepts espoused by the other side, yet there is little reason to believe there has been a substantial transformation in the kind of stories that circulate on the front pages of newspapers including major publications such as New York Times and Washington Post. Implicit in the critique from Pro is the idea sensationalism or the notion that vacuous drivel reigns supreme and not only that but somehow that this is an aberration to the business. [Profit and Circulation: A Brief Explanation for First Argument] Con would like to point out sensationalism in the news is a perennial part of American and international news. There are several obvious reasons: most media organizations are also subsidiaries of gigantic multinational corporations. Therefore, profitability then is an obvious factor in the collection, writing, and distribution of news. [Specific Examples to Substantiate First Arguments: Yellow Journalism] In American journalism, there is a long history of sensationalism; one readily available and widely known phrase in our shared history is Yellow Journalism. Yellow Journalism exemplifies the despicable depths by which Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst were willing to descend to increase profits and circulation. Below I provided a caption of the two men along with another of a front page story, one that as you can see shows a nude women searched by police. Obviously, the story is sell sex not substance. [I will delay other arguments until it is clear whether my opponent is going to participate].
O Canada needs to be changed

Now that I have my personal grievances out of the way, I will address everything you have said. I am not making assumptions, Con literally said "people will get offended by anything, people just need to learn to deal with it" Furthermore, atheism IS on the rise. Con attempts to refute this argument by stating that 85% of the world has a connection with some form of religion, This is like arguing that a kettle isn't getting warmer because it's only 30 degrees. My argument about influential people having an opinion makes complete sense, they're influential because people listen to them, and they have power. Therefore what they say matters to a large group of people, most of which, they will agree with. Adolf Hitler, for example was influential. And his views reflected those of his massive amount of followers. Excuse me for making a mistake, I meant anthem not flag. Thank you for pointing that out, as I believe it indicates that you do not have many rebuttals and are left with the desperation of correcting miniscule errors. I'd like to examine his next statement, that the anthem should be abolished to be more inclusive. I believe the point of a national anthem is to represent it's nation. And therefore should be more inclusive. But abolishing it would include nobody, making it completely exclusive. Con states that we should change Germany's national anthem to include Hitler due to neo-nazis. I would argue that neo-nazis are a minority that are not on any substantial, therefore should not be included. Throughout the debate, Con has stated that keeping the anthem the same affects nobody, it is inconsequential and means nothing to everyday life. Con, ask yourself. What's the difference between the inconsequence of keeping the flag, and the consequences of changing it. That is, if there are any. Thank you for the debate, Con. Although I do believe the final round became too personal for my taste.
O Canada needs to be changed

The Pro's first argument is that Athiesism is on the use. This is no true, over 85% of the world is in a connection with some form of religion. Pro's argument about highly influential people doesn't make any sense. Adolf Hitler was. Very influential person, but the rest of us didn't agree with what he was doing. The Boston Bombing was covered by many news stations, too, so what? A lot of things are popular news wise, that doesn't mean anything. You are making assumptions. I never said that all people should just endure what they do not agree with. Just because s handful of people are offended, we shouldn't change anything. I have no idea how you interperated that differently. Canada is not changing its flag, I have no idea where you got that information from. Once again, you fail to understand what I am presenting, keeping the Anthem the same isn't hurting anyone. I guess if we change it to be more inclusive, we should just abolish the whole anthem so it includes no one, so no one gets offended. Keeping it the same won't change anything. , which,you have chosen to ignore. It's unnessaacary. Should we change Germans national anthem to include Hitler because of neo-nazis? Tradition is something that is rare now a day, which is good in some stances, others not. People will literally, yes literally, get offended by everything, sometimes you have to ignore the inconsequential complains, like this anthem changing. Pro has failed to explain why we should change it, Pro has rather explained the rights of Canadian citizens.
O Canada needs to be changed

I will start with Con's argument against changing the reference of god, he says that it says god, and that we should just accept it. I believe this to be a poor argument in any situation, it's basically asking for the opponent to just give up. He goes on to say that the majority of Canadians are christian, he does not address the global trend of an increase on people who do not affiliate with any religious denomination, so I am assuming that he concedes that eventually Christians will be a minority in Canada, and therefore the national anthem would not accurately represent the country it is symbolising. The next argument I would like to address is Con stating that we should not change something because "a handful of people are upset about it" This is completely false, there are some highly influential people who want this changed and it is being covered by many news organisations. Regarding Canada's freedom of speech, I am completely disgusted with Con's attitude, he seems to believe that people should just endure it when things they do not agree with are ongoing. If humanity had this attitude in the majority, we would still be living in mud huts. Furthermore, I would argue that changing the flag is a small step towards Canada's people shifting the momentum towards more important changes, such as their freedom of speech laws. In the same way that you have to walk before you can run. In Con's closing statement for the round, he states that things can not be changed simply because someone is offended. This is clearly undermining the power people can utilize when something offends them, people will rally against things that they deem wrong, and have done throughout history. (I'd like to apologize for my lack of sources, but I had roughly two hours left to make this due to a mix of laziness and me being busy)
O Canada needs to be changed

There still is no need to change it back, it has been fine whether or not it was the original line. It still technically is altering a historical song, because they are changing it. Altering- change or cause to change in character or composition, typically in a comparatively small but significant way. There still is no need to change it because it used the word "God." We have accepted that it says that and if you don't like it, deal with it. Over 60% of Canadians are Christian, so the majority of Canada would agree with keeping it. Why should we change something just because a handful of people are upset about it? If that is what we did, we would still be living in huts and running around naked! I don't think it is necessary for people to change things that don't need changing. Most people don't care if one person gets offended. We get way to offended these days, it ridiculous. Many people do want to change it to a completely different meaning, not just back to the original version, Canada's has a lot of freedom of speech, as long as it is justified. Do I agree with them? No, they should have all the rights of freedom of speech that we do. Hate Speech- speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. Keeping it the same does not fall under Hate Speech. It isn't threatening anyone or insulting them. Like I said, we have much more important problems to face than a national anthem. People will get offended by anything, people just need to learn to deal with it and that life isn't fair. I don't control Canada's Freedom of Speech, heck I don't even live in Canada! If Canada's Freedom of Speech is broken, they should worry about those issues first, then deal with the anthem problem. Wanting to change the anthem is part of their rights, so Freedom of Speech doesn't have much say against it. There is no harm in letting it stay the same. We have kept it like this for years, and only now people are complaining. We can't simply change something because someone is offended. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.dictionary.com...