BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The nsa is effective enough to use

General Keith Alexander has been asked how many times the NSA has stopped terrorists attacks. Each time he has been asked the number has changed. According to CNN General Keith Alexander has said it started at 54 attacks in the world. Then only 13 in the united states. Now it has changed to just one has been stopped. The one that has been stopped was a New York subway bombing. The NSA wasn't even a big part of it the British government told us the information they had about it and thats how we stopped them. There has been 49 homegrown terrorist plots in the United states. According to General Keith Alexander on one has been stopped. So there has been 48 that has been stopped due to other means then the NSA. So this proves that whatever money is going into the NSA is not being used to its full potential. The estimate of the NSA"s budget is about 8-10 billion dollars. So that means that money right there is not going to its full potential. Plus you can not go any more accurate than the leader of the NSA. So when he said only one attack the deputy director of the FBI, Sean M. Joyce, backed him up on it. My source was the CNN article. The CNN article had a video of him saying it. The Video showed him admitting to one attack. Also in that same article it says the one that was stopped was the subway bombing. That was stopped by the FBI on information that was given by the British government thus stating that the NSA has NOT saved any american lives.
The nsa is effective enough to use

Thanks for the opportunity to debate this topic. And sorry for the late response; life happens.First of all, I'd like to see a source on your "0 attacks" statement. That just seems too negative to be true, but I'll be the first to admit it if you have a legitimate source. General Keith Alexander, director of the NSA, said earlier this year, "We provided 54 cases to several congressional committees in which these [NSA] programs contributed to our understanding, and in many cases, helped enable the disruption of terrorist plots in the U.S. and in over 20 countries throughout the world... Of the 54, 42 involved disruptive plots — disrupted plots. Twelve involved cases of material support to terrorism. Fifty of the 54 cases led to arrests or detentions. Our allies benefited, too. Twenty-five of these events occurred in Europe, 11 in Asia and five in Africa. Thirteen events had a homeland nexus. In 12 of those events, Section 215 contributed to our overall understanding and help to the FBI — twelve of the 13." (1)Now, I know that the NSA is very secretive. When asked for exact documentation of these statistics, they don't always release it. Thus, the main criticism of these claims is that they are unsubstantiated. This is obviously baseless in itself. We cannot expect the NSA to give up every single detail regarding these cases; that would most likely be detrimental to their program. That doesn't mean that the NSA hasn't done anything. Details have been revealed for some of these cases. Even if there was only slight contribution, it remains contribution nevertheless, and is thus worth every penny.1. http://icontherecord.tumblr.com...
Hatred towards the United States of America

Meh, why not. ... you know what? Don't answer that. Anywho, I'll give you an opening statement showing a reason why, and if you can beat it I'll move on to others (since apparently this isn't a debate :P) Well, first off is our interventionalist policy. This policy stretches all the way back to good ol' Teddy Roosevelt and that Big Stick of his. Basically it went like this: Foreign nations getting you down? Storm the place and make sure they do what you say. A small country picks a political idea other than your own? Fund a bunch of murderers and rapists in the hope they overthrow it. They don't want you to dig on your soil? Replace their leader with one who thinks you should. Of course, you can only kill so many people before othres start to get a little ticked. After all, what would you think of someone who comes in, kills your brother, takes your toys, and puts your neighbor in charge of your house? This has been going on since the early 1900s at the least, so you can imagine that we picked up some enemies along the way.Well, let's see how you can defend interventionalism before we move on to a new topic.
Challenge me.

Unfortunately, my opponent wants to debate "how we should debate the resolution" rather than the resolution itself. I have said my piece on interpretation, and will say no more. Since my opponent has twice declined to post an actual argument, I will do the honors. Guns should be legal to own in America for the following reasons: ==LEGALITY== Just as the three main points of real-estate are location, location, and location, the three main points of gun rights are 2nd amendment, 2nd amendment, and 2nd amendment. A - Citizens are given the right by our governing document in its second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." http://en.wikipedia.org... B - Right to self-defense United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 1996) "The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one's home against physical attack -- particularly if a citizen shows specifically that organs of government charged with providing protection are unable or unwilling to do so." I have not the room to post the case, so please consider this document as part of my case. It is essential to the debate. http://www.secondamendment.net... ==CONCLUSION== I have the duty and the right to protect myself, and those under my protection. If I fail to do so, I am failing as a citizen. In order to fulfill my duties and my rights, I must retain the right to own firearms. Thank you.
Challenge me.

That is quite a dangerous move you are pulling. What if I said, "Resolved, Great Britain should kill all of its citizens?" I will go a bit easier. There are quite a few people who disagree with me on this issue. Resolved: United States citizens should be allowed to own firearms I am PRO, my opponent is CON. Con has set no parameters, so I will present my own. 1 - Both sides have the burden of proof 2 - New material may not be brought up in the final round 3 - Swearing shall result in the vote-bombing of the swearer's account :D CITIZEN - a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection SHOULD - represents a moral or legal obligation or duty OWN - to have possession of FIREARMS - A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant Definitions are taken from dictionary.com I will allow my opponent to begin the debate to give him more to work with. Good luck.
The New York Giants will beat the New England Patriots

I am challenging three parts of the Pro's Arguments 1) "The NY Giants are an all round better team then the Patriots" 2) "The Giants need to Destroy the Patriots".......Or in other words.......... "The Giants will destroy the Patriots" - 1 - You claim the Giants are an all around better team than the patriots, but actual data and stats suggest other wise. QB Rating of Eli Manning in his lifetime = 82.1 (B-) QB Rating of Tom Brady in his lifetime = 96.4 (A+) TD's to INT's stats of Eli Manning in his lifetime = 185 TD's, 129 INT's = 1.43 TD's per Int TD's to INT's stats of Tom Brady in his lifetime = 300 TD's, 115 INT's = 2.61 TD's per Int Passing yards per game for the Giants = 317.8 Passing yards per game for the Pats = 295.9 Average Points Per Game for the Giants = 24.6 Average Points Per Game for the Pats = 32.1 Average total Yards Per Game for the Giants = 385.1 Average total Yards Per Game for the Pats = 428.0 Average Rushing Yards Per Game for the Giants = 89.2 (Worst in the NFL) Average Rushing Yards Per Game for the Pats = 110.2 Number of Interceptions for the Giants this season = 20 Number of Interceptions for the Pats this season = 23 Number of recovered fumbles by the Giants = 11 Number of recovered fumbles by the Pats = 11 (Both teams are the same meaning the Giants are not better than the Pats in this category even though the Pro claimed the Giants are an "all around better team") Number of times the Giants have been forced to Punt = 82 Number of times the Pats have been forced to Punt = 57 (Pats Punt LESS) Coaching Record of Coughlin of the Giants lifetime during the regular season = 129-103 (55.6%) Coaching Record of Belichick of the Pats during regular season = 175-97 (64.3%) Coaching Record of Coughlin of the Giants lifetime during the Playoffs = 10-7 (58.8%) Coaching Record of Belichick of the Pats lifetime during the Playoffs = 17-6 (73.9%) Number of Superbowl appearences by the Giants with Manning = 1 (1-0) Number of Superbowl appearences by the Pats with Brady = 4 (3-1) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.nfl.com... http://www.nfl.com... http://espn.go.com... http://espn.go.com... So to summarize, the Giants are worse than the Patriots in many offensive and a few defensive categories involving both their QB's, offensive and defensive performance, head coaching record, and experience playing in Superbowls.... - 2 - Giants will destroy the Patriots I think I have provided ample comparisons showing how the game will be very close, if not in favor of the Patriots....
The New York Giants will beat the New England Patriots

That is also very true but i think that the giants end up coming up with the win cause of the coaching staff and players also play very well with each other and the giants. and anyways idc who win im 15 and i have to win this debate or i will fail in my debate class but you wanna make it impossible to pass!!!!!!!!!! idgaf who wins the superbowl !!!!!!! I JUST WANNA PASS MY CLASS!!!!!!!!!
The New York Giants will beat the New England Patriots

Thank you for conceding all 11 of my initial arguments and focusing only on Superbowl appearances (#12). Historically yes the Giants have won 3 times, back in 1986, 1990, and 2004 and Eli was only around for one of those. The other two Superbowls the Giants have won without him came when Eli was in preschool. (Eli was born in 1981, he was 5 when the Giants won their first Superbowl, 9 when they won the second one so i find it odd that the Pro is trying to give Eli Manning Superbowl credibility when he was 9 years old...) The Pats on the other hand have been in 7 Super Bowls and have only won three, but all three of those (2001, 2003, 2004) came when Brady was the one leading the team to victory. They have won 3 Superbowls in 4 years while it took the Giants a whopping 18 years to do the same thing. My arguments still stand that the Giants are not an all around better team than the Patriots like the Pro claimed, that there is ample evidence to suggest that the Giants will not destroy the Pats, that the Superbowl will probably a close win, and from the performance of the Pats compared to the Giants this season it could easily end up being the Fourth Superbowl Tom Brady has won in his career.
Parents are responsible for low children grades

Okay I'll give you this scenario. A kid is often late to class, forgets to do the homework, and is often unprepared for the tests. Now who's to blame? Should the teacher fail the parents, or the student? It's not the parents fault that the teenagers have low grades. A teenager can simply say: "I'm gonna do homework now" and go into their room and play video games. If a parent sees that his/her child is failing, then they will develop a strategy to get them caught up. And they will find out what the grades are because of the parent teacher meetings held every half a semester. Ending: pro cannot prove that the parents are to blame. A teenager could easily lie, and he cannot deny that one at all. Thanks.
Whether ISIS could (beyond reasonable doubt) march to Rome and "dethrone" the Pope.

Looks like this debate is going to come down to semantics."Whether ISIS could (beyond reasonable doubt) MARCH to Rome and dethrone the Pope."They would have to march all of their armies to Rome and dethrone the Pope. Please show to myself and to the voters where you ever said ISIS must march "all of its armies" to Rome.Please also show to myself and to the voters where you ever provided a definition for: "March"If Italy could not stand against ISIS, It has the European Union to back them up. Germany, Britain, France, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Estonia, Spain , Portugal, all united against one threat.Please show to myself and to the voters where the rules said ISIS must conqueror NATO countries.CON has failed to be clear with his definitions & rules and Pro's arguments should not be penalized for the other side's mistakes. ISIS could dethrone the Pope, NOT Allah.ISIS technically could if Allah exists and sides with ISIS. He could then empower ISIS soldiers.They would have to MARCH to Rome. NOT march IN Rome-but TO Rome.So what's to prevent an ISIS sleeper cell from being activated in another Italian city where the agents then proceed to march directly TO Rome? What's to prevent an ISIS sponsored mob-protest from beginning in a different Italian city and then also proceeding to march TO Rome? Muslim mob riots have happened in Europe before and will happen again.ISIS does not have so much support in ItalyTo what degree? CON has provided no source for this claim.The US has begun to intervene in this crisis, weakening ISIS.The whole military might of the US and NATO countries could not possibly deter ISIS from dethroning the Pope if ISIS is able to acquire a WMD. A nuclear WMD will clearly shift the balance of power in dramatic ways.Back to CON.
Whether ISIS could (beyond reasonable doubt) march to Rome and "dethrone" the Pope.

Rebuttals: CON provided me enough wiggle room with his definitions and rules to make the following arguments: 1) ISIS may dethrone the current pope through assassination (either in Rome or when the Pope is traveling aboard). 2) ISIS may "march" to Rome with clandestine soldiers and embedded sleeper cells or with Muslim protesters (no need to conqueror NATO countries). Notice the debate--- "Whether ISIS could (beyond reasonable doubt) MARCH to Rome and dethrone the Pope." They would have to march all of their armies to Rome and dethrone the Pope. I am sorry if you misunderstood the debate. "Allah himself may dethrone the Pope (pending if Allah exists)." Allah is the muslim deity. However I doubt that, even if he exists, he would dethrone such a nice man as the Pope. And plus, The debate was whether ISIS could dethrone the Pope, NOT Allah. "Thus ISIS may "march" to Rome successfully simply by using embedded European sleeper cells or celestine agents. They could also meet the walking definition of a "march" by simply parading around the city while waving there ISIS flags or hilariously walking in step." Ok, still you have contradicted yourself. You first say they could do it through sleeper cells, and now you talk about parading through a city? This would still be unlikely, as A) Italy fears an invasion-so they are already set against ISIS B) ISIS does not have so much support in Italy Italian Police are already on the lookout for ISIS. They stand with machine guns ready, and there is an increased security presence in the public places. Italy is no friend of ISIS. But that is besides the point. They would have to MARCH to Rome. NOT march IN Rome-but TO Rome. Now, ISIS also has a holding in Libya. Can't they Sail Across the sea and march to Rome that way? No. Italy is a part of the European Union. And Italy is ready to attack ISIS before ISIS can invade them. Italy is ready to lead a multilateral effort to tackle the growing threat from jihadists in Libya and prevent "a caliphate" forming across the sea from Europe"s shores, the Italian defence minister has said. http://www.newsweek.com... If Italy could not stand against ISIS, It has the European Union to back them up. Germany, Britain, France, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Estonia, Spain , Portugal, all united against one threat. US Intervention--- The US has begun to intervene in this crisis, weakening ISIS. Obama has persued airstrikes, along with Canada and Turkey. NATO is considering intervention to protect Italy. http://www.nbcnews.com... So to sum up my arguments-ISIS could not MARCH to Rome and dethrone the Pope because A) NATO and EU Intervention B) US intervention C) Italy is set against them
Whether ISIS could (beyond reasonable doubt) march to Rome and "dethrone" the Pope.

Terms: ISIS-A Militant Islamic group located in northern Syria/Iraq Pope-The leading figure in Catholicism (located in the vatican city) dethrone- to physically remove from any position of power or authority. Rome-the Capital of Italy My Arguments: I. Military Strength II. Foreign Intervention III. ISIS is not supported by many muslims I. Military Strength In order to even reach Italy, ISIS would have to march through Syria, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and/or Italy. Syria-though it is engaged in a civil war-its military is relatively strong, with--- 178,000 frontline personnel 500,000+ reserves 4,950 tanks 680 multiple launch rocket systems 473 Aircraft 169 helicopters 44 Coastal defense craft 1 bil defense budget This alone is a very hard nation to battle, especially for this militant militia type army. Now, they could also try and pass through Jordan---And after that they would have to pass through Israel. Jordan Military--- 175,000+ Soldiers 1,321 tanks 4600 Armored fighting vehicles 88 multiple launch rocket systems 246 Aircraft 107 Helicopters 27 Coastal Craft (Ships) 1 billion dollar defense budget 38 billion dollar purchasing power Israeli Military--- 500,000+ Soldiers 3,870 tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (these tanks are very well built and strong) 88 multiple launch rocket systems 9,000+ armored fighting vehicles 680 Aircraft 143 Helicopters 110 Military Ships 15 billion dollar defense budget 260 billion dollar purchasing power Or they could try and fight against Turkey--- 500,000 Soldiers 3,657 tanks 8,500 Armored fighting vehicles 646 Multiple Launch rocket systems 989 Aircraft 418 Helicopters 18 billion dollar purchasing power 1 trillion dollar purchasing power Even IF they got to pass through Israel/Jordan Syria/turkey, they would then have to pass through Italy itself! 362,000 Soldiers 600 tanks 9,500 Armored fighting vehicles 22 Multiple launch rocket systems 795 Aircraft 436 Helicopters 174 Ships 34 billion dollar defense budget 1 trillion dollar purchasing power I believe I have demonstrated it is beyond reason that ISIS should ever dethrone the Pope... I will present my next arguments in the next rounds. www.globalfirepower.com Good luck.
Abortion is an inalienable right.

http://www.answers.com... When you don't define something in the first round, you're typically subject to the dictionary. None of these have a "Without consent" clause, and the philosophy dictionary specifically dictates that it cannot be signed away voluntarily. Dictionaries are typically better indicators of common usage than an obscure court case. " But we must recognize that forfeiture of a right by the bearer does NOT supersede the inalienable right. If I say "I give up my right to abortion", you cannot forbid me one if later I have a change of heart. A temporary waiving of my right to one does not make it alienable by any logic." You didn't specify temporary in that statement. If you give something up, and no period of time is mentioned, it is assumed to be permanent. " Because one opposes a right does not make the persons right to what they oppose inalienable. Do I give up my right to life because I support capital punishment? I am violating another's right to life by condoning it, but the criminal voluntarily forfeited their right to life" If they forfeit it, you aren't violating it. You cannot violate what is not present. If, however, you support (or execute on your own authority perhaps :D) capital punishment of people who have not forfeited it (abortionists, say :D), you have forfeited it by that support. And all other rights, since all rights exist as consequences of human nature being calculated with the right to life.
Abortion is an inalienable right.

You've really made me think. It must be understood that the definition I use is -Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights, as defined by Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101. You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. But we must recognize that forfeiture of a right by the bearer does NOT supersede the inalienable right. If I say "I give up my right to abortion", you cannot forbid me one if later I have a change of heart. A temporary waiving of my right to one does not make it alienable by any logic. Because one opposes a right does not make the persons right to what they oppose inalienable. Do I give up my right to life because I support capital punishment? I am violating another's right to life by condoning it, but the criminal voluntarily forfeited their right to life - so in all actuality I am NOT violating that which is waived. Again, it's the voluntary waiver of that right that's the real issue, it does not change the right itself. Clever approach, but I stand my ground.
Abortion is an inalienable right.

Abortion is a right, but that right, like any right, is not inalienable. All rights are alienable- by the action of the rights-bearer, in waiving that right directly or in invalidating it by violating someone else's rights. If a woman has ever stood outside an abortion clinic, blocking the path to the abortionist for someone else, she does not have the right to abortion. If a woman kills someone innocent, she does not have the right to abortion. If a woman sticks a knife inside another innocent woman's womb, she has invalidated any claim she once had to her own. Whosoever doth not recognize rights doth not have them, is the relevant principle here. If the state wishes a murderess to bear their new genetically modified super-soldier in her womb, the murderess, by virtue of her guilt for murder, has no right to protests. Granted, in more mundane situations the state will have no need of the murderess's womb. Yet this does not mean she has the right to it. That right, and all other of the murderess' rights, have been alienated by her action.
Abortion is an inalienable right.

Abortion is an inalienable right. Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person. This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant. As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right. Good luck, can't wait to hear the counter.