BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. should fund the Kurds instead of the Iraqi's in the fight against ISIS

The Kurds have had very little success actually. ISIS now control almost all of Syria and has outreaches in Iran and Iraq. Let me remind you that ISIS is using our weapons. On one shipment to the Kurds, we sent them 2300 armored Humvees, and all of them got taken by ISIS. This fight with ISIS is going to take a lot of resources and manpower. To properly exterminate all of ISIS, the U.S. would have to kick Obama out, and get a real leader that actually uses the military. Then we would need to do constant air raids as well as put troops on the ground. This will be really costly. Need I remind you, ISIS has captured most of Syria's oil, and is using this to generate money, which is working out really well for them. Firstly, we already are helping the Kurds. We give them some weapons and some supplies, and that's it. Both Al Qaeda and the Taliban were CIA trained. Al Qaeda was formed by Osama Bin Laden, who in the 1990s was trained by the CIA to overthrow the regional dictator and install a new one. When that was done, Bin Laden turned around and crashed a plane into our WTC towers. Now, let's move on to "allies". Kurdhistan will be nothing. A new nation, especially in the Middle East, will not survive. Firstly, they need a sizable population, they need an economy, a government, etc. We already have Israel as our ally, and seeing as Obama is out in 2017, the next President could fix our relations with them. Also, we are allies with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and India. We have the Middle East locked down from both sides. Pakistan to the right, Saudi Arabia and Israel to the left. Also, Kurdhistan needs land! The second a country gets founded, it would have to take over someone else's land. If Kurdhistan is attacked, and we help them directly, we would have to declare war for no reason, and the UN would surely get annoyed. ISIS has no allies. Even Al Qaeda split from ISIS because ISIS was too radical. No one likes them! One of two nuclear bombs should handle the problem really well.
The U.S. should fund the Kurds instead of the Iraqi's in the fight against ISIS

Thank you for accepting. I will open the debate with three arguements 1: Military Success. In the war against Isis, the Kurds have already done well even with limited resources. They have launched several successful campaigns, broken sieges, and have successfully defended themselves. Many of their weapons are outdated and don't have very much funding or weapon systems. So far in the war, the Kurds have been the main fight. Supporting them would give us a military ally in the Middle East and a key in the fight against terrorism and Islamic militants. So far, Iraqi government forces have had a limited field of success and they themselves are on the verge of being defeated by Isis 2: Allies Assisting the Kurds, and should they win, would almost undoubtedly lead to the declaration of the nation of Kurdhistan. A creation of the nation would give us a key ally in the Middle East since our relationship with Isreal went sour. If we support them, they may be our allies. 3: Reason to fund at all Funding the Kurds would give us a key asset in the Middle East. As most of us know, the Middle East is infested with terrorist organizations. Should the Kurds win, they will be a key ally and staging ground in the war. As another bonus, defeating ISIS would destroy one of the most powerful terrorist organizations in the world. If we do nothing, and Isis wins, they can launch terrorist attacks all over the world. Their very existence rallies several terrorist organizations, resulting in the recently occurring. And if they ally with Iran and get their hands on nuclear weapons, it would be the end of the modern world.
Video gaming is not a sport

To start off, I want to clear up some of the misconceptions that my opponent has about gaming and gamers, and point out some of the mistakes he made. Firstly, not all gamers sit in a dark room 24/7 surrounded by energy drinks. I am a gamer but also love playing sports. 1) You say that there is nothing physically exerting about sitting in a chair, but there is also nothing physically exerting about sitting around a table and moving a few pieces around a board. You may say that chess is a mind sport, but does this not still count as a sport? 2) Gaming definitely has strategy. In games such as Counter Strike - Global Offensive, communicating with your team and coming up with a strategy is key to winning the game. The strategies in CSGO are also more complicated than "flank the other team" or "setting up an ambush." And yes, I do look at replays of other games so I can learn how to play the game better. 3) I responded to the mind sport thing in my first point. 4) Video games definitely require skill. Why don't you go play against a professional CSGO player and tell me that video games take no skill. Also, people do get frustrated with games and see them as too hard. 5) Aren't all sports technically just entertainment and hobbies? That's kind of the whole point. Overall, I feel that video games are just as qualified to be sports as football or chess.One last note, use ' instead of " when making a contraction.
Resolved: The USFG should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax

This is a part of famousdebater's tournament. The resolution is "The United States Federal Government should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax." -Pro argues that the United States Federal Government should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax -Con argues that the United States Federal Government should not replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax Rules... Round 1: -Con gives definitions and sets up debate -Pro provides opening argument Round 2: -Con gives opening argument and refutes Pro's Case -Pro refutes Con's Case (feel free to address rebuttals as well) Round 3: -Con responds to what Pro argued -Pro responds to what Con argued Round 4: -Both debaters conclude their arguments and finish responding to what each other wrote. Definitions: United States Federal Government (USFG)-Government established by the Constitution of the United States (http://definitions.uslegal.com...). Should-"used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions" (https://www.google.com...). Welfare-"Welfare is a government program which provides financial aid to individuals or groups who cannot support themselves" (https://www.google.com...). Negative Income Tax-"a system of income subsidy through which persons having less than a certain annual income receive money from the government rather than pay taxes to it" (http://www.dictionary.com...).
Resolved: The USFG should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax

This argument isn't solid, because if you continue to read the rest of Friedman's statement, you'll see that he argues that it does give incentives and doesn't take them all away. Do remember that Con did state that they took away incentives in the very first sentence of his R2 argument. My opponent doesn't address the argument on how you still get benefits even when you are working which makes people actually want to work when compared to the current system. My opponent has dropped this and I would like to extend it across the board. My opponent never explains how this is worse than the status quo. We can see, as stated before, that you still recieve benefits while working and you get more than welfare. This is a simple fact that my opponent drops in this debate. Again, my opponent has yet to actually address my point again on keeping your benefits. People may abuse the system of welfare, but NIT reduces that chance as people would actually want to work and this point has been dropped. No matter how much my opponent wants to bring it up, we have to discard it. The poor and small families are huge amounts of people who get welfare and if you exclude them, then the stats are going to get improperly blurred and it's simply not a true representation of the actual reality. My opponent makes the misconception that if people were responsible then we wouldn't need a benefit system. THough this cannot be true as there will always be businesses that go out of business, layoffs, firings, and people have temp unemployment. These are simple facts of economics and even if people were responsible, it wouldn't change these simple facts. My opponent himself advocated against the reduction of benefits and yet he talks about abolition here as an argument. 100% unemployment is simply impossible. My opponent has dropped my argument here on how it can help get minorites out of the poverty level, while his only response has been to provide an off-topic debate argument on it. Please extend this argument across.
Resolved: The USFG should replace its welfare program with a Negative Income Tax

The quote may not have been appart of my opponent's argument, but if we finished the quote that he was quoting from Milton Friedman from the very source he got it, we can see what my opponent is saying isn't entirely true. With his own source saying differently, we cannot take his argument to be completely true especially when it states it's not eliminated entirely as there will still be incentive. My opponent brings up how NIT will detter incentive to work, but how would that not occur in the status quo? Under NIT people can still work and recieve benefits and in doing so, the more they work, to a certain utility, will increase their own income and as their work more, their income will increase. Under the status quo, if you start working, you lose your benefits, so that would more likely deter work incentive than NIT would. My opponent is minconstrewing the graph I had posted. Sure at some point benefits cut off and you start having to pay taxes, but isn't this done in the status quo with welfare? Except welfare, you start working, you lose your benefits while under NIT, you don't. This would be more benefitical to the economy and the average American as they would have more money on hand as they would be able to afford more and help with extra expendatures. If a person has no job under NIT they would get $10,000, but as they earn money, they don't lose their benefits. Let's say they increase their income to $20,000 a year. With NIT, they wouldn't lose their income, but instead they would gain $5,000 from the government, while under the status quo, you wouldn't recieve anything. My opponent's article excludes a huge sample size of people who are poverty stricken. Such an article is moot as it excludes people who are really on the base of welfare/NIT and excluding them will reach changed results. Granted people may make rash decissions, but we do have to realize that due to the Rational Choice theory, that each and every person, under extreme circumstances and/or measures, will make the decission that maximizes the greatest possible benefit for them [1]. You may think they do this in some circumstances, but they will still make rational decission when face with certain circumstances. It is almost obvious that they would help factor and favor feeding themselves and their families. Even if we cannot find anything evidence on it, we can still see that it works a lot better than welfare and in this debate, that's what matter's most. Even if what you are saying is true, I could simply come in and argue for 100% taxation of the rich to resdistribute to the lower class. This would solve the issue, but has nothing to do with this debate. We can see here we have to focus on the debate and the subject at hand and it shows that this helps minorities escape the poverty line while the current welfare program would ensure they stay there. NIT solves for this issue while welfare ensures to make sure this issue persists. Sources1. (. http://tinyurl.com...)
Remove the qualifications for president

You contradicted yourself from your second speech to your third one. 2nd Speech - "That should be the American people's decision, we are competent enough to choose our leadrs." 3rd Speech - "People make the "wrong decision" for president constantly." Debate is not about living in a paradox world where you can contend two different things and still be right. I am calling you out on that. But, the Judicial Branch was allotted the right during Marbury vs. Madison of Judicial Review meaning that the Judicial Branch can deem something constitutional or not. Because the constitution talks about "man", the judicial branch deemed it a universal term for all ethnicity and both sexes. Under Article II Section I is sets down specific parameters that must be followed whereas the parameters that you speak of were never specified. Yes it is hard to win a debate, that is why a lot of people lie as is and the lying will just get worse if we repeal this part of the constitution. I agree with Kels1123, 35 isn't old. And, you did not answer my argument about how a plethora of people would flood the campaigns not allowing for quality people. That went uncontested. Next, honest, hardworking citizens DO run for president. In reality, we cannot out step the limits of the constitution because that would set a new precedent for worse limits in the future. You did not answer this argument which means that I win the debate on constitutionality. Next, some people would contend that Arnold is not a good governor.
Remove the qualifications for president

It is up to the people and yes we are competent to choose our president. But, with the increase of rash action in our society it is easy to falter and make the wrong decision. Also, if we allowed for 18 years olds to run for president, we could see the political realm flooded with inexperienced people who are still semi-"wet behind the ears". Next with the Asian and Black Student Union debate, that would completely undermine the essence of a Black Student Union because you would be allowing people with other heritage and background into a club that is oriented on certain backgrounds where people of the same ethnicity can get together without have other people involved. And, we could have a leader who was good for another country flaunt his political capital here and he could easily turn out to be the wrong choice. Also, this same person could claim nationalism and patriotism for America but his morals and agenda could lie with another regime. It is easy to put on a show and win support. Next, your argument about 34-year-olds is denied because of my previous argument stating that it will be those that are in their teens and twenties who will flood the presidential campaign and it is also rejected because we haven't had but maybe a few presidents under the age of 50. And, I see that you believe strongly that you win this debate because you have struck "fools gold" in one of my arguments and I know that you are trying to capitalize on the idea that America has the competence to vote for the right candidate. (you express this with your anaphora.) I believe that America is capable of making competent decisions and that is clearly the reason why we haven't repealed this article of the constitution. We are not "excluding our citizens" just because they have to wait to take office. It is better to have 2 quality candidates who know what they are doing than to have 10 candidates who are still learning how that government/politics works. Next, Under Article II Section I of the constitution it states that there are other, powerful avenues that practically anyone can pursue in politics and that presidency and vice-presidency are the only exclusive ones because they wield the most power. Clearly we do not want to withdraw these restrictions. And, the person with AIDS can still leave his impact on America without being president and also that same person will most likely be seen as weak because of his disease and will therefore not be taken seriously or be voted for. Next, by repealing something out of the constitution, you would be violating what was previously set down and you would be setting a new precedent to disregard the constitution which is the backbone of our society. It would be detrimental to repeal this because of mild discontent. Thanks again!
Remove the qualifications for president

America is built on the basis of its people being allowed to vote on who it sees fit to lead but the founding fathers made an error when applyig limits. These limits make it so that the American people can not choose who they see fit. It also takes away the right to lead by citizens. Many foreigners would like to run for president but are barred for the position. Also, age, if a younger person wants to run for president and stand for youth rights, they should be allowed to. In the beginning of America, the president discriminated as well, blacks, women, non- protestants, and the poor were barred from running.
Yeh Ladka / Larki hai Allah

If I understand this debate, it seems that I will be arguing that a human can be God. In order to prove my point, I only have to find an example of a human in history who could be considered "God." I will start by posting the definition of God, as defined by Merriam-Webster (3): 1. capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value 4 : a powerful ruler The definition that applies here is 1a, as that definition specifies the capitalized usage of God, which is used in my opponent's argument. 1b, while it does fall under the capitalized usage, is irrelevant because it refers to only the Christian religion, and religion was not specified in the terms of the debate. Here is my example of a human who fits the definition of God: Haile Selassie was seen by the Rastafarians as the second coming of Jesus Christ (1). Through the Holy Trinity, which claims the three natures of God to be the father, the son, and the holy ghost, with Jesus Christ being the son, that would mean that Jesus is considered to be God (2). Haile Selassie, being seen as the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, would therefore be God, who is "the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe" as defined by definition 1a. One might say that Haile Selassie was just a normal man, and does not deserve to be given the title of God. However, the key words in definition 1a is "worshipped as." This means that regardless of whether or not Haile Selassie was actually creator and ruler of the universe is irrelevant. All that actually matters is whether or not he is "worshipped as" creator and ruler of the universe or not. As the holy trinity shows Jesus Christ to be God, a Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is creator and ruler of the universe, and the Rastafarians worship Haile Selassie as the second coming of Jesus Christ, than that means that Haile Selassie fits the definition of God. Please vote pro Sources: 1. http://www.bbc.co.uk... 2. http://www.kisol.com... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Interracial dating/marriages is wonderful

I take the position that mixing in with other races than your own is a very good and diverse way for people to live. I'm a Hispanic, but i dislike being restricted to my own race because it's boring. I love diversity, i mean when i was younger, i'd prefer a white girl, but over time, i came to accept all girls: I'd marry an american girl, black, middle eastern girl, indian, Jamaican, African, Filipino, Japanese, Hebrew, Chinese, etc. doesn't matter what race or culture.
Interracial dating/marriages is wonderful

My opponent said that he wanted me to show that "dating/marriage is constructively valuable" and so i thought that's what he meant. While it is true that some advantages aren't restricted only to marriage, other benefits (financial, legal, etc.) are (1). In my 2nd paragraph, notice that i never said marriage, i said relationships (dating, courting, etc.) whether or not that includes marriage. Source: 1. http://www.nolo.com...
Interracial dating/marriages is wonderful

I will begin by addressing my opponent's first paragraph regarding health benefits within marriage. I propose that my opponent has commited the fallacy of false cause (when the link between the premises and conclusion depends on some imaagined causal connection that probably does not exist). Part of the health benefits obviously come from shared health care within a marriage while others may simply comes from a higher standard of living typically associated with conhabitation. Nevertheless, I suggest that none of these benefits is intrinsic to marriage- that when one becomes married one's health and standard of living increase in a way that it could not have otherwise. This is simply implausible. My contention with my opponent's second paragraph will be somewhat similar to my contention with his first: that cultural diversity is not intrinsic to marriage and in any event is not something that comes through marriage. If one is already open minded enough to marry into another culture than that individual does not achieve diversity through the marriage. This diversity is a pre-existing value that could still exist without marriage.My opponent has yet to demonstrate the intrinsic value of marriage in general, and more importantly to this debate, the intrinsic value of interracial/cross-cultural marriage/dating.
Interracial dating/marriages is wonderful

Thanks for the debate In this round, i will show how dating/marriage is constructively valuable to society. Married people have less heart attacks. They have better health than those who aren't married. Married people live longer than single people. Married people have benefits in the family. Interracial relationships benefits because you expand yourself to be open-minded of the world around and are exposed to culturally and ethnically different people. You are very able to integrate another person's traditions, cultural values, different foods, and language into your own life. It breaks stereotypes and creates diversity in family bloodlines and society. Source: http://people.howstuffworks.com...
Interracial dating/marriages is wonderful

Thanks for the topic truth_seeker. I gladly accept. I'd like to begin with a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary: 1. Wonderful- That arouses wonder or astonishment, marvelous; very remarkable or admirable; extremely good, excellent. Additionally, I assume that we are all under the correct assumption that the dating and marriage referred to here are the pursuit and ultimate accomplishment of a union between two people with certain necessary facets such as mutual monogamy, cohabitation and (in many cases) the establishment of a family through children. Interracial Dating and Marriage Are Not Wonderful Interracial dating and marriage are not wonderful (and cannot be collectively) as dating and marriage as a whole are not wonderful. Dating and marriage are traditionally accepted throughout much of the world and have become a key part of our society and culture, but they serve no constructive purpose that could not otherwise be achieved besides the propagation of mutual selfishness and mutual unhappiness. In his rebuttal, I challenge my opponent not only to show that interracial dating/marriage is wonderful in the next round, but that any dating/marriage is constructively valuable.