BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Syrian rebels are terrorists

I"m glad this didn"t end right after the first post, To start I would like to point out the technicality required to debate, My opponent has classified ALL REBELS as TERRORISTS, we must take this into account when reading all of his posts, this also means if 1 REBEL IS NOT A TERRORIST, then I have won todays debate. "We knew that the Syrian rebels are MAINLY Al Qaeda, and that the U.S. has been supporting these terrorists for years." You clearly state that MAINLY all are terrorists, Inferring that some are not, so basically you have said you do not feel that the statement Syrian rebels are terrorists is true. But to expand anyways Rebellious in the oxford dictionary is defined as "showing a desire to resist authority, control, or convention." Not actually resisting this control or authority, thus you are claiming ANY SYRIAN CITIZEN WITH A THOUGHT OF REBELION IS A TERRORIST. Even a Syrian fighting against rebels is thus a REBEL against the Rebels and in turn A TERRORIST. You have categorized innocent civilians as those who wish to fight others with fear incorrectly. Thus my burdon is purely to fight against you claiming Syrians as a whole are terrorists, we cannot make this claim, people around the world should not consider anyone a terrorist simply because of the fact they have a desire to resist authority. These Syrians live in poverty, Accourding to the telegraph "Akram stares up at the cardboard boxes that have arrived at his door. Ten years old, on a cold and rain-soaked day at the beginning of winter in Lebanon, he is barefoot. His shelter from the bitter chill and swampy muds in the country's Bekaa Valley " a mere taste of the weather to come - is a wooden frame, wrapped tightly with plastic sheeting. Two tents along, a baby diagnosed with malnutrition is crying. Akram is Syrian. He and his family fled at both the height of the bombings and of the baking summer temperatures. After a dangerous journey, they arrived with only the clothes on their back. Now they are facing the threat of the cold and lashing rain of Lebanon's winter with little means to protect themselves. Akram is one of the nearly six million Syrian children inside the country and across the region who are in desperate need of aid in what is now the largest humanitarian operation in history. More than 400,000 Syrian children have fled to Lebanon alone so far. I travelled to the country with Unicef and met children who have lost everything they have ever known. Akram has seen loved ones killed, been ripped away from his friends and his home, and has run for his life - all before he reached double digits." These are not terrorists, simply innocent people. Sources; (1)http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (2)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Humans are not supposed to eat meat

First of all-We also have the technology for protection against rape. Second of all, you're seperating humans from carnivores in your argument. That's wrong. Humans are carnivores. We specially prepare our meat, discrediting your molar, stomach acid, and intestine points. For your blood point, we naturally pick out people to kill the animals for eating who are fine by it (used to be tribal hunting parties, now hunters and farmers), In conclusion, there are really no good points for the statement "humans are not supposed to eat meat", However, there were plenty of good points against it. Thank you for the debate.
Humans are not supposed to eat meat

Yes, we naturally got the intelligence to make ovens and weapons for hunting meat. But just because our we can do something does not mean we should do it. Like we have the technology for roofies, but we don't "natrually" need to rape. Here are more points about our physiology. Humans have weak nails and small canine teeth. Carnivores have sharp claws and large canine teeth to tear flesh. Like other herbivores" teeth, human back molars are flat for grinding fibrous plant foods. Carnivores lack these flat molars. Carnivores swallow their food whole, relying on their stomach acid. Our stomach acids are much weaker in comparison. Carnivores have short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through the animal fast. Humans" intestinal tracts are much longer. Also, our brain is equally against eating meat. Carnivorous animals are excited by the scent of blood. Most humans are revolted by the sight of blood. Where do we get our protein? You can get plenty of protein from plants.
Humans are not supposed to eat meat

It was natural for humans to evolve to get intelligence to learn to cook and eat meat. Sure, it was unnatural for humans to eat meat when we lacked intelligence. I fail to see how unintelligent-subhumans lacking the intelligence to cook have anything to do with the topic. And the Bible is full of instances of Gad COMMANDING people to eat, and He placed power over the animals in the hands of humanity. That's a side point, and let's ignore that. Thank you.
Humans are not supposed to eat meat

I included the part about cooking the meat to show that our bodies cannot take the meat. When we first evolved to be homo sapiens, we were not intelligent enough to cook it. We evolved to be able to cook it, and society evolved to eat and sell meat but we are still unable to safely consume it raw. The food chain would not be disrupted; over 90% of the animals we eat are bread and raised to be eaten and are not roaming freely or eating other animals. And your side point is almost completely irrelevant and would belong under religion, not health. But if you really want to bring it in, the Bible says not to kill. https://answers.yahoo.com...
Humans are not supposed to eat meat

We aren't supposed to eat meat because we must cook it? So, we cannot use technology, (cooking is a technology) to improve our lives? That's like saying you're not supposed to debate online for the simple fact that you must use technology. Basically, your first two arguments say that we wouldn't eat meat if we lacked intelligence. But did our intelligence not come naturally? We are at the top of many food chains, and the natural cycle would be seriously disrupted if we stopped eating animals. As a side-point, The Bible does allow eating meat, and so do most other religions. Thanks!
Humans are not supposed to eat meat

No human is supposed to eat meat. My most obvious argument is the simple fact that we have to cook it or else we get sick. Sashimi comes is specially prepared, and does not come from Africa, where the first humans came from. Also, our intestines are too long. The number one killer of people who choose to eat meat is atheros chlorosis or clogged arteries. The meat takes so long to pass through our bodies that we absorb too much fat. Natural meat eaters never clog their arteries.
The electoral college should not be abolished.

I will use this round for my rebuttal speech. It is hard to read down the flow of my opponents speach but i will try to pick out each argument and refute them as best as i can. 1. My opponents first point seems to be that the possibility of a recount in the national popular vote would be a huge problem. My rebuttal to this is that if we switched to a national popular vote, the chances of a needing a recount would greatly decrease. According to the NewYorker, If you do the math, extrapolating from the frequency of statewide recounts for offices like governor and senator, you find that the likelihood of a nationwide election that"s anything remotely as close as Florida 2000"not just in absolute numbers (537 votes) or percentagewise (9,492 votes)"is preposterously low. How low? Well, in a national popular-vote election, a disputable result"one close enough to be theoretically reversible via a recount"could be expected to occur at intervals ranging between once every 640 and once every 1,328 years. Also according to the same article, even if a recount did need to happen, It still wouldn't be recounted a national scale, every state can still do a recount within their state in a timely and orderly manner. http://www.newyorker.com... 2. My opponent claims that if we switched to a National Popular vote, the voting age would be lowered. My rebuttal to this doesn't even need to be backed by evidence. For one thing, my opponent hasn't had any evidence saying that this will happen and secondly, my opponent has no proof that if this does happen it would have negative impacts. I am running out of time as i am leaving town and won't have access to internet for a day so this is my argument.
The electoral college should not be abolished.

The electoral college should not be abolished. It is a perfectly good system that has led to peaceful transfers from president to president for 200 years. Why risk that by changing to a popular vote? In 2000, all the votes in Florida needed to be recounted, and that took a long time. What if we had to have a national recount? We could be without a president for months! What if a country were to attack us during those months. We would be in complete disarray, and get destroyed by that country! In the electoral college, you don't have to do a complete recount if you mess up counting, because whoever gets the majority of votes wins that state, you don't need to be exact. Also, a purely popular vote would cause the small states to lower their voting age to 16 or 17 so presidents campaign there. Do we really want teenagers deciding the future of our country? Also, the electoral college forces presidents to campaign in all the swing states, and doesn't allow you to win the presidency by dominating one region of our country. If there was a popular vote, presidents would only campaign in the big cities: New York City, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. Getting rid of the electoral college for a popular vote is like getting rid of a best of 7 World Series and replacing it with whoever scores the most runs over the 7 games. Did the Marlins not win the world series in '02 because they scored less runs? Of course not. Also, remember that the last country that successfully used a direct democracy was Ancient Greece. Why? Because it doesn't work. Thank you. Source: saveourstates.org, heritagefoundation.org
Sony is better than Nintendo

First off, I have a few questions. Question number one is: what do you mean by the word "better"? Do you mean the literal meaning, "Of superior quality or excellence", or do you mean that in your own opinion Sony is "better" than Nintendo. Please define what you mean. Question number two: What division of "Sony" are you talking about in this debate? Are you talking about the company as a whole, or only one division of the company (PlayStation/video game division). The same question can be asked about Nintendo. All I am asking is that you explain in more detail what we will actually be debating. Next, even though this is a debate, I would like to know if you will be able to change your mind about what you believe. If I can state my reasoning, will it have any affect to change your mind or are you set in stone that "Sony is better than Nintendo"?
Are drones good or bad for our future

Drones are used by the U.S. military for several purposes, such as border control and counter terrorism, but they too have their domestic purposes such as for concerts or film. But again, they are most commonly used on the "War on Terror", allowing us to fight battles without ever putting boots on the ground. Unless you are a pacifist, it is arguably probably a good idea to kill the enemies that wish to annihilate us. With or without the influence of the former Soviet Union with their war with Iraq and the United State's current war, we would still have dictators to dethrone, and evil to eviscerate, and if the U.S. limits their technology in this field, it is unlikely others and their posterity will emulate and do the same. Even if one repudiates their very being and strikes them as being evil, they may be a necessary evil. Arguably, in some circumstances, it is harder to construct and engineer a drone than to just use existing technology to get the job done. Take the UAVs in use by the U.S. military. It is much easier to send some 20-year-olds to fight jihadists and pious extremists than to design a drone, construct it, and maintain it. Smaller UAVs such as Predator and Reaper drones can cost $2,500-3,500 per flight hour, and some of the larger drones such as the Global Hawk can cost approximately $30,000 per flight hour. Logically speaking, it isn't lazy to construct a drone as my opponent has said prior. Its construction is labor intensive, requiring skilled engineers, sometimes with specific degrees. But they can get some jobs done much more effectively then any soldier ever could.Some would say that they could be bad due to their blowback when a target is killed, more enemies are made. Of course, we would have this problem no matter what we do, unless we do covert operations every time. That really isn't feasible with our situation in the Middle East. Bombings and air raids are common in war, and they have more or less the same effect. Some would also say that piloting drones has adverse consequences for the combatant, but again, this problem is inevitable.https://www.fcnl.org...
Are drones good or bad for our future

Drones have negatively affected our lives today how do know well a student 17 years of age and love drones but what has it done I think its made me lazy because of the video recording abilities I now can fly around the neighborhood to the park and not leave the house at all its that crazy would you imagine being a teenager having a video recording drone and nothing else to do now picture how Amazon is using drones to deliver its faster but is it more convenient? now you do your own research and see if you agree with me
RESOLVED: George Bush should be regarded as America's best President

I will refute your last argument. "Again I refer to my argument above. I have there mentioned the administration's spectacular intelligence failure on 9/11. I have also mentioned Bush's decision to invade Iraq based on incorrect intelligence of alleged weapons of mass destruction. In addition it should be pointed out that the decision to go into Iraq was made with effectively no exit strategy. Once again I refer to my mention above of Bush's premature victory claim. If these are not wrong decisions then I don't know what is." 9/11 was not a failure in any way. Name a single instance of intelligence fault; the government knew that terrorists were responsible, and in Bush's perfection, he made the appropriate decision. He negotiated with Iraq, but they proved uncommunicative and uncooperative, which prompted a necessary war. There was an exit strategy, it just need not to be employed. The war is over. "If the job of the president of the USA is to impose his own will on the nation (and the world) then I will concede he is doing his job and then some. If, on the other hand, his job is to lead this fine (but by no means greatest) country in accordance with the will of its people then his approval rating history speaks for itself. I will not address "prosperity" again as the figures above also speak for themselves." President Bush is not imposing in any way possible; he is simply improving the world through his guidance and practices. Although now his primary concern is Iraq, just reading or watching of him could potentially help countless nations out of adversity. How can you say his approval rating is terrible? The polls you cite are biased and should be disregarded. A small portion of America does not constitute a national consensus. The amount of patriotic and loyal Americans, and the amount of praise for a overly-sufficient job as president evidences a popular and favored president more so than anything else. Please travel to another nation. Then you will see what I mean. During the presidency's before Bush, other nations rivaled USA in trade, technology, education, and general wealth. Now, during Bush's two terms, a drastic spike in America's well being has placed us far and behind the international competition. How can you deny that America is currently the greatest nation? I do intend this to be a serious debate, and I await your counter-argument, and my eventual rebuttal.
RESOLVED: George Bush should be regarded as America's best President

*President Bush, throughout his whole life, has never made a mistake, or made a wrong decision. Again I refer to my argument above. I have there mentioned the administration's spectacular intelligence failure on 9/11. I have also mentioned Bush's decision to invade Iraq based on incorrect intelligence of alleged weapons of mass destruction. In addition it should be pointed out that the decision to go into Iraq was made with effectively no exit strategy. Once again I refer to my mention above of Bush's premature victory claim. If these are not wrong decisions then I don't know what is. *I will agree that President Bush did not fully create what America is today. That was the work of countless other presidents. The important thing is, he is doing his job, and then some. He has lead the greatest nation without error, and by doing this has been seen as a role model to the world, with unfathomable amounts of people seeking his guidance. Also, by doing this, he has created a level of prosperity that is envied by all other nations. Every citizen is enjoying the sublime nirvana that Bush has created. If the job of the president of the USA is to impose his own will on the nation (and the world) then I will concede he is doing his job and then some. If, on the other hand, his job is to lead this fine (but by no means greatest) country in accordance with the will of its people then his approval rating history speaks for itself. I will not address "prosperity" again as the figures above also speak for themselves. I do understand (or at least suspect) that you have initialized this debate as a joke. However, it would be nice if at least you tried, even if you do not fully (or at all) believe in what you are saying. You have set out to prove that Bush is the best US president. Him doing his job (even if he in fact is, which I am contesting) is not enough to make him the best. JFK did his job too. And at least was pleasant to look at (at least that's what my lady friends tell me). In any event, you made the claim, the onus is on you.
RESOLVED: George Bush should be regarded as America's best President

I would like to start by saying that I have only 3 points. America being the greatest nation has nothing to do with President Bush when stated by itself, and the unimaginable prosperity has more to do with being a role model more so than you currently think. 1) President Bush has never faulted in his existence ( I am sorry for the previous typo, it would be appreciated to for now on use faulted instead of faultered ) President Bush, throughout his whole life, has never made a mistake, or made a wrong decision. 2) President Bush is a rolemodel to the world, leading the greatest nation to an unimaginable prosperity I will agree that President Bush did not fully create what America is today. That was the work of countless other presidents. The important thing is, he is doing his job, and then some. He has lead the greatest nation without error, and by doing this has been seen as a role model to the world, with unfathomable amounts of people seeking his guidance. Also, by doing this, he has created a level of prosperity that is envied by all other nations. Every citizen is enjoying the sublime nirvana that Bush has created. 3) President Bush, in essence, defines benevolence A president should be a "perfect" citizen, epitomizing what is valued by society and its people. President Bush epitomizes this ideal citizen through his benevolence. He has helped almost every single citizen in America, and is working on spreading his charity throughout the entire world as seen in Iraq in the past several years. I do understand you are Con, but please either make your own points, or atleast make a valid counter point.
RESOLVED: George Bush should be regarded as America's best President

George Bush is defined as our current president. President is defined as the official in charge of our president. Regarded is defined as considered. Best, in my opinion, is defined as the most productive and capable [president], yet this word is extremely subjective in this debate. My two contentions so begin are as follows: 1) President Bush has never faultered in his existence 2) President Bush is a rolemodel to the world, leading the greatest nation to an unimaginable prosperity 3) President Bush, in essence, defines benevolence I will elaborate later but I am currently in a time constraint.
yoloing twice a day is part of a healthy lifestyle

My opponent has failed to define "yolo" so I will define it for him.I define "yolo" and Yargharing Overly Longly Outstandingly.What does this mean? Yargharing is a pirate out-screech. If you yell it, pirates will beat you up.And even if you're Jack Sparrow, you'll get caught in a VERY tricky situation. Few survive yoloing once....but twice...PER DAY?? Nope. You won't survive. You will die, along with any health benefits, and the pirates will steal all your money. And wife. But mainly money.I'd like pro to show me how yoloing can help us.
Obama is a Fascist

Clarification of terms: Obama: Barack Obama, the current President of the United States Fascist: An advocate or adherent of fascism. fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism (1). Dictator: An absolute ruler (2). (1) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
100 Debate Challenge 13: This House would ban cosmetic surgery.

"Doctors take the Hippocratic oath which says to do no harm. " Yet, they still do harm in our daily lives, inevitably. Some doctors make mistakes. "There is no positive impact. " People are happy and they look better as previously said. My critically important source last round remains un-refuted."You won't see doctors going homeless if cosmetic surgery ends. " For cosmological doctors, yes.My arguments still stand as I see them. Judges, vote whoever you think won.
100 Debate Challenge 13: This House would ban cosmetic surgery.

Doctors take the Hippocratic oath which says to do no harm. At best cosmetic surgery masks a psychological problem and at worst it causes suicide and cancer. There is no positive impact. You won't see doctors going homeless if cosmetic surgery ends. There is a shortage of doctors at worst you'd see less competition and their salaries go down slightly, which would actually make medical care cheaper for everybody and be a net good. Vote pro, because cosmetic surgeries downside vastly out weighs it's upside, which is only a mask for psychological problems and feelings of inferiority anyway. My arguments are short but my points stand. Virtually no upside other than some weak free will argument that collapses on it's self when taken to the extreme.