BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Osama Bin Laden is Dead

Must I explain myself over and over again? KEY WORD-"the U.S government chose not to RELEASE pictures". Meaning that the people who killed him took pictures and gave them to the government, but did not release them to the public. This is true with my research from Round 1, a quote from Barack Obama with CNN, and the research proves that pictures were taken as well. Furthermore, review my arguement from round one, where I wrote that releasing the pictures to the PUBLIC would prove "offensive and insignificant", therefore, it was a mistake on your part for careless reading. Again, prove this "impossibility", and I would like to add that this thought is also unimportant because it is strictly your opinion in that an event even less momentous than the "killing of their greatest" enemy could cause a stir for at least a large portion of the American public, thus, I did not attempt to "school" you. An event he might be able to exploit is the current attacks from North Korea on South. Helping South Korea with troops and supplies would greatly increase Obama's popularity, and this is proven with the following quote-"Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. voters nationwide favor a military response to eliminate North Korea's missile launching capability." I gave proof from the President himself therefore if his assasination proves to have no faults with research that I conducted then the DNA test would have none as well, but I apoligize if I offended you, as this was not an objective of mine. In addition, show your sources for the example you gave where you wrote that the U.S government said that Saddam Hussein had nuclear missles. I would like to conclude round to by saying that I am American as well and did not intend to offend you. Talk soon.
Osama Bin Laden is Dead

Pro claims that he did not say that no pictures of Osama were not taken. This is a blatant lie. "irrelevant reasons to support their "cause", such as that the U.S government chose not to release pictures or videos of his corpse. Furthermore, this was not possible, because the troops that killed him buried him at sea." -Pro, round one Pro explicitly states that it was not possible for pictures to be taken, showing not only an utter lack of research, but a lack of common sense. Pro says that I concurred with him in my second point. This is completely incorrect. Pro describes Osama's terrorist action as "offensive and insignificant", and I tell him that Osama's terrorist action was extremely significant. I contrasted him in the most basic of ways. Pro then attempt's to school me on my own countries legal system by explaining that laws the government makes become the law. This is obvious, however, if the entire government agreed to forcibly lower gas prices, then it would not be a popularity move, it would be the government process. He stated an "example" of ways Obama could boost his popularity without fabricating an assassination. The example, however, was illegitimate due to its impossibility. I could accept his point if he gave a possible example which would have stirred up the American public more than killing their greatest enemy. Instead of countering his DNA point, I tried to point out that a government's DNA test claim is valueless to one who suspects them of lying about an assassination. Why not fabricate an assassination AND a DNA test? While I do not need any Con arguments since you have the burden of proof, I can simply say that there is absolutely no evidence he died besides a government known for lying's word. (e.g. "we know Saddam Hussein has nuclear missiles") If there is no reason to believe it, then why believe it? Pro finishes up by claiming I insulted him after he offended me and all other Americans in such a arrogant way. I feel no shame for that.
Osama Bin Laden is Dead

Sadly, you seem quite confident in your rather mindless retorts. I never, ever, wrote that pictures were not taken of his death, but I did write that these pictures were not revealed simply in their offensive manner, aside from the fact that he was shot in the face. Furthermore, the response you made towards "number 2" makes no sense whatsoever, because that is what I said in my agrument. While I wrote that Obama would have done this as a popularity booster, it was an example, however, if Congress and the Judicial Branch agreed to this, it would ensue. Also, as you may not know, when one pays for gasoline, that individual pays for the "guess" amount that it should be worth when oil is no longer avaliable, being a non-renewable resource, therefore, it is possible. As for the response to number two, you fail to give an arguement as to if his DNA was NOT checked with his sisters. You, in addition to retorting in an insulting manner to my arguments, provided erroneous thoughts backed up with no research to my side while not even having a "Con" debate, but only wrongly "proved" my thoughts wrong. Good luck to you.
Osama Bin Laden is Dead

First of all, would like to make sure people know that I have no opinion on whether or not Osama is dead, however, I will debate against that theory. I will assume that the Burden of Proof is on my opponent to determine that Osama Bin Laden is dead, based off of his statement, "Osama Bin Laden is dead." Pro's claims are: 1. The government is not hiding anything. The reason that there are no pictures in the public is that none were taken, Osama was buried at sea first. This is blatantly false. Pictures were taken, which five minutes of research would reveal. 2. The government avoided taking pictures because people would want to see them. This would have no point because what Osama did was "offensive and insignificant" This is not only ignorant extremely offensive. While I agree that Osama is not the security threat that most classify him, he nonetheless orchestrated the deaths of more than ten thousand in his various terrorist attacks, and permanently disrupted trust in America. He probably cause the greatest attack on America and its culture since the Spanish inquisitions. 3. Obama did not use this as a popularity booster because if that was what he wanted he would have simply forcibly lowered gas prices. This is ridiculous, and impossible. Not only does the president not have the authority to overthrow capitalism, if he tried to he would be shown overwhelming objection based on principles rather than free things. If your opinion of the American citizens is low enough that you think they can be bribed into tyranny then I do not know why you trust the government so dearly. 4. Osama's DNA was checked with his sister's If one is to believe the government's word on this then the fact that they say there was a DNA test provides no greater evidence. Pro has pitted himself with BOP and failed to give even a reasonable argument. However, I wish him good luck and would hope he can come up with a stronger argument so that I can enjoy this debate with him.
Osama Bin Laden is Dead

Osama Bin Laden is Dead. Most people who believe that this terrorist is not give irrelevant reasons to support their "cause", such as that the U.S government chose not to release pictures or videos of his corpse. Furthermore, this was not possible, because the troops that killed him buried him at sea. This now brings me to a new cause for "Cons" of this topic because the U.S so intelligently new that if Bin Laden was, in fact, buried, terrorists would have a place to perhaps recover his body for the reasons that also drive them to carry out terrible deeds to thousands of people. If Obama had chosen to bury him, the citizens of America would "harass" the government to release pictures, and to some, although what Bin Laden did, is offensive and insignificant, meaning it would have no point whatsoever. Others also believe that Obama would lie about this occurence to gain "followers" for his next presidential campaign. I know for a fact that he would not do this, however, because if this was the case, the government would be able to somehow be able to "uncover a breakthrough" of some sort, like, for instance, the lowering of gasoline prices. In addition, if the president were to want to lie about his death, the Congress and Judicial Branch of our government would have to agree, which is quite unlikey. From CNN: While releasing the photos may have silenced some doubters, Obama was concerned it could be viewed otherwise, and didn't want it to appear he was displaying them "as trophies." His DNA was checked with that of his sister, and the outcome was "positive". He was wanted in about 200 countries all over the world, and now he is dead.
Prostitution Ought to be Legalized in the US

Creating oppotunites like this is abusing and negative overall to women. Women should not be given this opportunity because they will be subject to a life inequity. Allowing such laws, although legallypossible, serve no purpose other than to accomodate sex hungry men. Women in poverty will turn to the streets in a conquest of making money rather than perusing an education. They almost become merchandise. Lower class women without the opportunities will sell out their bodies for cheap money to the corporations. running the scandals. Even with the use of prophylactics STDs can at times be spread. It is only 98% even with perfect usage. Only 85% with typical usage. That sounds great, but a full time prostitute likely has sex multiple times a day. Lets say 3 times a day on average. 3(7)=21. 21(5)= 105This means that within only 5 weeks, there would be approximately 2 condom failures. Assuming ALL 105 condoms were put on and used perfectly. If 2 condoms are broken in just 5 weeks, then 22 would be broken in a whole year. That means that on 22 different occasions per year the prostitute would be susceptible to STDs and pregnancy while also risking her clients by getting any STDs she may already have. A career prostitute, lets say works 20 years. Within that career on 440 different occasions was she vulnerable to disease and pregnancy. Remember even this is generous, considering at typical use it is only 85% effective. Leading to approximately 497 chances of vulnerability.That sounds pretty terrrible. If 22 condoms malfunctioned on you every year, you would likely get pregnant often and contract several diseases per year. I would also like to mention that these do not prevent skin to skin diseases such as herpes and Hpv from being transmitted.As far as the economic benefit, I would assume there are many ways to gain revenue for the government besides legalizing something that will increase the spread of disease and subject young women to terrrible conditions they are forced into.
Athiest is false

I will summarize in three major reasons why the negative has won this debate. 1st. As I explained before due to the incorrect wording of the resolution I have concluded that the pro has to prove atheists do not exist 2nd First contention which talks about Ancient Greeks having this defined and that has still gone not addressed 3rd Second contention which gives examples of many proven atheists in the past that has also gone unaddressed I urge a vote in the negative.
Athiest is false

Con scrared of truth of cretion and that athiestism is lie. That why he play wit word. If he got good argment, he would actully argu correlctly. I sed athiest is false, not athiest not exist. False: incorrect Athiest: not believe in trut of god, Athiest is false: athiest idology is incorect.Con is scarred of leving his litle box and facin trut of relgion and is libral evil satan communits nazi baby eatr. He play wit word and trolling, so vot pro.
Athiest is false

Due to the wording of the resolution I have concluded that the resolution is stating that Atheists do not exist. False: not according with truth or fact; incorrect. Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. So therefore, I am put to the daunting task of proving atheists exist. C1: History of Atheism: Atheism is the rejection (or absence) of the belief that God, or any other deities, exists. Although the term "atheism" originated in the sixteenth century " based on Ancient Greek O40;_2;^9;_9;`2; "godless, denying the gods, ungodly"[1] " and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century, atheistic ideas, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history. Over the centuries, atheists have arrived at their point of view through a variety of avenues, including scientific, philosophical and ideological notions. As a percentage of the global human population, public adherents of atheism remain but a small minority. While minority, it has been recorded these individuals have existed through history. C2: Examples of Atheists A. J. Ayer asserted the unverifiability and meaninglessness of religious statements, citing his adherence to the empirical sciences. The structuralism of L"vi-Strauss sourced religious language to the human subconscious, denying its transcendental meaning. J. N. Findlay and J. J. C. Smart argued that the existence of God is not logically necessary. Naturalists and materialists such as John Dewey considered the natural world to be the basis of everything, denying the existence of God or immortality. An example nowadays would be the Amazing Atheist on YouTube, contrary to popular belief he actually exists (believe it or not). I will now address my opponents arguments. He talks about Charlie Darwin being an Atheist therefore furthering my argument that they exist. Evolution is irrelevant on whether or not Atheists exist despite that they might believe it.
Athiest is false

Athiest false becuse evilution wrong. Why evilution wrong? Fisrt of all, evilution maded by Evil commnist libral nazi athiestt Charle Darwin. Here is pruf: Hitler sed that jews are inferior race. Darwin say that inferior race selected out by natral selecshun. Coincidenc? I tink not. I know Darwin meant specie when he saided races, but I ignore that because I want ad hominum argment to work. Second of all, Evilution saided that wha;e come out of odcean and became cow. That rediculus. I know that because VEnomFangX reliable sourse. Evilution is thery that nothingness explosion into somthing, and then dust and cloud becumes sun and Earth and sol system. Then lightning strike puddle and creted life. Then fish crawed out of land, and cat eat fish and becomes catfish. Then monkey had reproduction with guy and becume humans. This is totally wat evolution says. Tird of all, banana have no seed. IF banana evolve, is should have seed. I know that wild banana have seed but domesticated banana dont becuse theuy cultivated, but evidence, logic and truth is for evil libral, so ignore seed in wild banan. Forth of all, cat don't come from dog, so thery explaining diverseity with natral selecshun is wrong. Fif of all, there are no transition fossil. All the transitional fossil listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org... are maded up by evil libral satan worshipping communits nazi obama athiest jewish lizard goverment conspiracy shill mind control weapon scientists! Sixth, ther are many type of evilution micro evilution: thery of mutation and natral selecshun macroevilution: thery that dog com from cat gas evilution: thery that hydrogen crete heavier mater gas evilutioon is bs becuse sun is not converting hydrogen to helum thrugh nuclear fusion, instead it run on burning fart from chuck noris. Evidence athiest is wrong: 1. argumen from water Only earth has water. That is evidence of divine creater. We know only earth has water becuse water on mars ice cap not exist, frozen water on moon maded up lie, and teh comets never exist! Comets not exist, and they are just holograms and part of projec blu bemm. 2. argumen from strawmen Evilution saty that everthign com frum randomm chance, with no natral selecshun mechanism. That impossible!!!!!1!!! 3. argumen from shill gambitt All argument for athiest are created by brainwashed shill misinformant agent and evil bioology techer created by mind controlling organizations that are part of projec blue beam, such as CIA, FBI, NSA, NASA, FAP, KFC, IBM, doubtingdave, etc! Everone use foil hat or else barak osama will use mind control hologramic electrolyzing dihydrogen monoxide non-robotonic hors d'evore electro-magnetic spaceholographics to turn evverone into evil socialist communits nazi satan worshippin athiest!!1!!!!1! As yu can see, athiest false, argment against me are fail, reasinging and logick is fail, adn if u belif in those evil lie u evil 2.
Congress should prioritize energy development over all other areas of the budget

How about intead of promoting energy development, we use the source of energy that we already have. Drill for oil in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and all other domestic sources of oil. 1. Drilling for our own oil can also lead to economic sustainability by lowering gas prices. The idea that congress should prioritize spending on alternative energy will take money away from where it is needed, and put it into an idea that is expensive for the private citizens to adopt. Even if the energy is adopted, people will still not be able to afford the cars needed to use the energy. How will adopting an expensive system pull America out of recession? 2. We need to use what is available now, future generations will gradually adopt this alternative energy concept. The environment can wait, our economy cannot. "We do not inherent the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." Do not complain about inheriting a bad economy. Fix it. If we invest in these expensive ideas for energy, then we will give our children a poor economy to grow up in. America can get the capital needed through drilling for oil and future generations, or even later in this generation, can worry about alternative sources of energy. 3. Drill for our own oil, we do not need to deal with OPEC. We can price our own oil. Prices will drop dramatically. I do not see how protecting our foreign interests is helpful to our country. America should be more independent. 4. How could a new energy make a smarter populace? How will throwing out all gasoline run car companies keep jobs in the hands of workers? How will taking money away from areas like education to invest in energy going to lead to a smarter population. 5. Let's look at what you are trying to take away. You are trying to cut spending on military, the only thing that keeps America free. You are trying to cut spending on education, (though I can not stand our current education system) which will only make things like colleges harder to get in to for the students. This reprioritization idea of yours is not worth it. I look forward to your response!
Congress should prioritize energy development over all other areas of the budget

RULES- I would just like to start off with a few key rules. First off the first round should be a brief outline with an intro. You can choose to put definitions in here or in the case. 2nd round is the cases of each side. 3rd round is a rebuttal opportunity with the 4th and final round being a final focus showing why you have won the round. Also all sources must be accessible to both parties to be considered valid although logical thought process without sources must be acknowledge as well and can't be dismissed on the basis of not having a source. All points not addressed stand and issues regarding framework and interpretation of the resolution must be addressed in the 2nd and 3rd round as if we were to enter the 4th round without a debate on this it could lead to arguments that don't conflict. EXACT WORDING- Resolved: The 113th U.S. Congress should prioritize energy development over any other domestic policy. In this day and age the benefits of promoting energy development here in the United States are widely over looked. If the current congress can agree on new energy reforms that promote the growth of alternative fuels and congenital fuels the effects would be exactly what America needs at this moment. With this in mind I offer the following contentions to support my position 1. Promoting energy development can lead to economic sustainability and get us out of our current recession 2. Advocating for alternative energies supports the environment and leaves resources for future generations 3. American made energy protects our interests in foreign policy 4. Reforming energy policy would lead to a more educated populace and keep more jobs in the hands of American workers. Thank you to the future CON debater for accepting my challenge.
Masterbation is not seen as a sin in the bible

Saying one is the same as the other is very untrue, just because masturbation is done with sexual thoughts that are sinful does not make masturbation itself sinful as well. When people masturbate they masturbate because they have sexual thoughts, they don't masturbate then get sexual thoughts. It is usually the sexual thoughts that get them there so saying that masturbation is the sin is going off of nothing in the bible, they are lead to masturbation because of thoughts. Masturbation is not a sin and no where does it say it is, thoughts are the thing that are considered sinful. Thoughts are what lead a person to masturbation. The bible orders us to take away those thoughts from our mind, the thoughts are to blame for sin not masturbation. Therefore masturbation is not a sin but a product of sin. Taking away the product does nothing and the product itself is not the sin, the sin remains weather you take away the product or not. The problem is thought, not masturbation. "Masturbation is not seen as a sin in the bible" Last I checked you have not proved that it is directly in the bible which is the very basis of the debate, that masturbation is not seen as a sin in the bible. You have not proven that it is what so ever. You have proven that every other sexual sin is but not masturbation all by itself. You have negated nothing.
Masterbation is not seen as a sin in the bible

I am not going to speak on sexual thoughts and desires as that is not the argument I am making, but I will say that the definition if you look up both the original Greek and Hebrew when it speeks of sexual immorality it means sex with another not masterbation but fornication, adultery, beastiality, prostitution, and so on. If you look up the original defintions of sexual immorality it actually is reffering to sex not masterbation. It is absolutely impossible to find a direct quote with the exact meaning reffering masterbation itself.Sexual Immortality actually means to think of yourself as divine in sex. Or that all women love you, beautiful women flock to you, and your some kind of sex god. This is known as sexual immortality, and it is a subdivision of lust. A common thing seen in masturbation.To conclude, the opposition has dropped all the quotes I put forward, therefore, they're affirmed. I was hoping he would argue against them, but all he has attempted to argue is that sexual immortality =/= masturbation, which he also spelled incorrectly.
Masterbation is not seen as a sin in the bible

I am not going to speak on sexual thoughts and desires as that is not the argument I am making, but I will say that the defintion if you look up both the original greek and hebrew when it speeks of sexual immorality it means sex with another not masterbation but fornication, adultery, beastiality, prostitution, and so on. If you look up the original defintions of sexual immorality it actually is reffering to sex not masterbation. It is absolutely impossible to find a direct quote with the exact meaning reffering masterbation itself.