BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nancy Pelosi is a traitor (and treasonous).

Treason: a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state; the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery; THE CRIME OF GIVING AID OR COMFORT TO THE ENEMIES OF ONE'S GOVERNMENT. (dictionary.com) Pelosi's statement falls right in line with giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one government. This is called treason, and thus why she is treasonous. But let's recap what she said to convey how idiotic and dimwitted our Speaker of the House really is. So, the surge was a failure and didnt accomplish its goal. BUT, some of the success was due to the goodwill of the Iranians? I thought the surge was a complete failure. Can you help me out here? And by the way, I dont want to get too much into the whether the surge was a failure (which it obviously isnt) but here are some facts: -Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki brought the Sadrists militias to their knees in a month-long battle that enabled Iraq's largest Sunni bloc to rejoin the government. -Furthermore, when Pelosi met with Prime Minister al-Maliki in Mosul she sang quite a different tune. She had "welcomed Iraq's progress in passing a budget as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power among local officials," and stated, "We're assured the elections will happen here, they will be transparent, they will be inclusive and they will take Iraq closer to the reconciliation we all want it to have." http://www.commentarymagazine.com... She is such a hypocrite like almost all the over liberals and phony repubicans in Congress. From Abe Greenwald: "Discounting the success of the American military, denying the accomplishments of U.S. allies, and giving the credit to our most dangerous enemies seems like an especially productive week for a Democrat on Capitol Hill. After Nancy Pelosi's post-Iraq hat trick, there's really no need for Barack Obama to make this trip after all." The most astonishing thing about this whole issue is that Pelosi actually gave credit to the Iranians, the same Iranians who are funding insurgents and sending in more extremists to kill American troops. It's widely known that Iran is the central problem in the Iraq War, according to Military Hearings by Patreus and other generals in Congress last month. The fact that Pelosi would publicly support and give credit to Iran is a monstrosity. She is as far left-wing as we've ever seen in Congress. She is a traitor.
Nancy Pelosi is a traitor (and treasonous).

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent. My opponent has provided no evidence that Nancy Pelosi is a traitor or is treasonous. The only argument presented is this: "AND SOME OF THE SUCCESS OF THE SURGE IS THAT THE GOODWILL OF THE IRANIANS." This does not make her a traitor. She is only saying that the surge failed. She is giving back a negative report from her visit.
Nancy Pelosi is a traitor (and treasonous).

"Asked if she saw any evidence of the surge's positive impact on her May 17 trip to Iraq she responded: Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn't happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn't accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians." "AND SOME OF THE SUCCESS OF THE SURGE IS THAT THE GOODWILL OF THE IRANIANS." -Nancy Stretch Pelosi http://www.commentarymagazine.com... ...and this is our Speaker of the House....are you kidding me?
Waffles vs. Pancakes

Neine, I say ye, depart from this blasphemy. La cr"pe ne doit pas "tre prononc" contre. (French).The pancake shall not be spoken against. Your ideas are a heresy to the kirken pannekake ( Norwegian for church of the pancake.) Not many can grow sick of the pancake. that is why you see 'all you can eat pancake' signs and not 'all you can eat waffle' signs. For an odd reason mustard taste better on a pancake than a waffel. I hereby shall conclude my argument and hope I have not been too offensive. Tot ziens.- That is Dutch, you know.
Waffles vs. Pancakes

WAFFEL! Za Waffel shall rule the world. Waffels start our day. Have you ever ate too many pancakes? You get sick, but you can never eat too many Waffels. Waffels are great for breakfast, lunch, dinner, or even a midnight snack. I am the TalkingWaffle. Waffels for life. Waffels. Waffels shall prevail. We are Waffel, and we are many.
Waffles vs. Pancakes

The Wafel my friend, is a treat for all. There are many forms of wafels too and they are much easier to make than pancakes. Also, if you put butter and syrup on pancakes, it all falls off the sides, but with za wafels, all of the butter and syrup stays in all of the little squares. Wafels are easy and fun for the whole family to enjoy. I call myself the TalkingWaffle because I speak for all the waffles. My Xbox One name is MajesticWaffle8 (add me if you'd like) because no two wafels are the same, they are all unique and majestic.
Smoking should be illegal

I have clearly stated that the government has the right to criminalize cigarettes. They have done it in the past with other substances and still uphold laws with substances today. And the argument at hand is about criminalizing cigarettes, not anything else, therefore the fact that my opponent brings up slavery and surfing with big waves are completely irrelevant. And if the fact that about half a million people die each year due to cigarettes is not enough, then explain why we should keep them legal and kill half a million people every year. All of the analogies that CON present are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with cigarettes, we are not arguing about eating steak, surfing, or slavery which is why i do not bother to answer them. Con also brings up the black market and how gangsters and criminals would get rich due to cigarettes being a illegal. There is no guarantee that this would happen. Con also states that the government would need to spend more money on police to enforce these rules which is completely false because you do not need to add more police, the police that we have now that are looking for other illegal substances would just have to add another to the list rather than adding more police. Why should half a million people have to die every year so that the government can save some money? Should we just make all substances legal with big warning stickers so that everybody has been thoroughly warned and allow them to make the decision for themselves?
Smoking should be illegal

I'll respond by saying that con's first argument is false. The government may not have the right to tell people what to do with their own body, but they do have the power to make the sale and usage of cigarettes illegal. Just like they did in prohibition by making alcohol illegal. Con states that we cannot criminalize smoking cigarettes just because its dangerous. That is the main reason in which we should criminalize it. Cigarettes are one of the most deadliest things that we have on this planet. 5 million deaths worldwide per year are cause by cigarettes, and 443,000 in the US per year as I stated before[1]. There are zero deaths a year caused by marijuana but that substance is illegal to use[2]. There should not be a substance on the market that kills 443,000 people per year and is addicting due to what is in it. Nicotine is addicting, there is no way around that. We allow people to produce and sell cigarettes that cause a huge amount of deaths and health ailments. The fact that nicotine is also put into the product is absolutely ridiculous because not only are they the most deadly legal substance we have, they are also the most addicting. Con begins to go on about how the criminalization of cigarettes would lead to more people going to jail, and more lives being ruined due to smoking cigarettes. The interesting thing is that Con states in the beginning of the argument that the government cannot control the decisions of the people. It is not the governments fault if they decide to make cigarettes illegal and people continue to smoke and they must be arrested. The clear reasoning for making cigarettes illegal would be the amount of damage it does to so many lives all over the world. People getting sent to prison and hopefully learning their lesson is much better than killing almost half a million people in the US each year. [1] http://www.quitsmokinghub.com... [2] http://drugwarfacts.org...
Smoking should be illegal

Many thanks for beginning this debate, Pro. I'll begin by pointing out that the government does not have the right to determine what people do with their own body. For instance, even if the majority of people thought tattoos were ugly, I think we can agree that it would be both unconstitutional and immoral to suggest the government outlaw tattoos. Likewise, if people enjoy smoking then there is no reason to criminalize it. While the government has taken measures to protect innocent bystanders from the dangers of second-hand smoke [1], there is no reason for it to legislate a victimless crime such as making the personal decision to smoke on one's own property. Pro must demonstrate that the government has the right to enact this kind of legislation, and then must prove why doing so would be a good idea when compared to the negatives. Pro brings up the fact that smoking kills about 443,000 deaths a year. It is my contention that freedom from the limitations of government tyranny is the benefit of not criminalizing smoking, and as such, the risks are acceptable because people willingly choose to smoke thereby willingly accept the personal risk. An analogy are the people who go surfing with big waves and how they risk drowning (should we criminalize that?), or those who choose to go sun tanning despite the risk of skin cancer. The fact is that we can't criminalize everything just because people might abuse it and create self-harm down the road. Smoking is not an immediate threat, and not necessarily a fatal one. I'd also like to correct a false statement Pro made in the last round. He claimed the government sells cigarettes, yet tobacco companies are private companies. The government does not sell cigarettes, but instead regulates the companies that do, just like it regulates other industries. The government in fact actively discourages smoking by my opponent's own admission, for example by mandating the Surgeon General's warnings about the dangers of smoking on every package [2]. If smoking were criminalized, all that would happen is that a black market would emerge much like the black market that existed during prohibition, or that which exists for drugs. This would only result in criminals (gangsters) getting rich from selling on the black market. Cops and politicians would become even dirtier than they already are by getting involved in the market, much like what's going on in Mexico [3]. More people would be going to jail and subsequently having their lives ruined merely as a result of smoking cigarettes. Moreover, children of inmates are more likely to suffer a plethora of behavioral, social and legal problems of their own, meaning generation after generation will suffer all because some people want to make a profit off of selling cigarettes [4]. The alleged benefits of criminalizing smoking are nowhere near the potential negatives. It is not the government's right or responsibility to do this. Thanks, Pro, and back to you. -- References -- [1] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://news.smh.com.au... [4] http://www.mapinc.org...
Smoking should be illegal

About 443,000 deaths are attributed to smoking[1]. A substance this deadly should not be legal. Not only does it cause these deaths, it also increases the risk for a large range of health ailments. Right on a pack of Cigarettes it says "Cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide". People have carbon monoxide detectors in their house to prevent them from dying due carbon monoxide being released into their house unknowingly, yet the government sells a product which contains it. [1] http://www.cdc.gov...
Phobias In DSM Are Psuedoscience

The rules are that the arguments must be in the form of formal deductive and inductive arguments. Terms in premises must be linked to provide conclusions, but easy to follow implications that cause leaps for convience and readability are fine. Please make an effort to do this. It makes our arguments easier to deal with.StipulationPhobia: irrational fear of an object or situationMental disorder: behavior or mental pattern that causes suffering or a poor ability to function in lifePseudo-science: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.Argument: Phobias in the DSM are psuedo-science.That which causes a disorder is the disorder. That which causes a disorder can be found with the empirical method and falls under science.Phobia in general is a mental disorder and can be empirically proved, so it is science.Specific objects and situations, such as water, sex, heights, etc. do not always cause irrational fear or always cause rational fear. The situation or object in these cases is never the cause of the fear. To say a person has a fear of an object or situation is not actually provable empirically, because the object or situation is not the empirical cause. The phobia is of subjective in origin, not an objective origin.Therefore, all definitions of phobia that include specific objects or situations are pseudoscience.This argument, although I do not want to argue it, may be principally applied to the -philia disorders as well.
Phobias In DSM Are Psuedoscience

Has asserted and keeps asserting that "The dysfunction is the cause" which makes no sense. We do not talk about this with any other medical or mental health condition. We generally understand that causes of conditions are external to person experiencing them. To say "the dysfunction is the cause" is circular. Pro states that I have contradicted myself while continuously providing circular reasoning. This doesn't follow general logical conventions. People indeed can make poor choices under the stresses of rational fear. Our choices of behavior are independent of the fear itself. Pro tries to tie irrational behaviors taken under fear to irrational fear itself which are separate concepts. Pro states: "Science may prove a person has an irrational fear occurring when they are near a low elevation environment, but they cannot prove the low elevation is the cause" However, if we find such cases we can use the scientific method to find out what is the cause. We can also use deduction as the patient reports to us what causes the fear. We can also use current therapy and methodology we have to see what in the patient's past experiences or environment would cause such a fear. Pro keeps going to Pavlov and behaviorist models and thinks they are making a solid point. However, we already understand how conditioning works that fear could be caused by past experiences or engrams. That does nothing to forward the idea that specific phobias are pseudoscientific in fact it shows the opposite. Pro had the burden of proof to prove a psuedoscientific basis for phobias as codified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and has failed to meet that burden. As such I ask the voters award points to me.
Phobias In DSM Are Psuedoscience

First we must define what science is and how that differs from pseudo-science. Science involves investigating the world and reality we experience via using methodology we call "The Scientific Method." How do the steps in the scientific method relate to mental disorders(specifically phobias)? 1) Making observations: Behavioral have made prima facia observations that people experience fears in life that impact their ability to function successfully in life as defined by a conventional standard of functioning and ability. We can observe how people behave and collect data about it. 2) Making hypotheses: Here we can ask questions about causes of the disorder. Mostly these will fall under investigating causes which may or may not be biological in nature. Research around many mental disorders including phobias centers around common experiences happen in a person's environment. For example, we see that people with borderline personality disorder experienced child abuse or domestic violence in their homes. 3) Testing hypotheses: We can test the claims we make though either experimentation(for medical or biological causes) or data collection and human survey(for environmental or situational hypotheses). We can make predictions and see if they come true. This is the basis of scientific inquiry. We can do this for all conditions including mental disorders and phobias and it has been done. 4) Conclusions, theories, or refinement: Based on the data and tests gathered we can make conclusions, theories, or refine our ideas for further testing. A simple good search of "Peer reviewed data about phobias" will bring you hundreds of scientific inquiries into the nature of phobias, causes, and therapies. I would ask pro, since they are making the claim of pseudo-science to provide evidence that any mental disorder is based anything but the proper scientific method. A claim of "That which causes a disorder is the disorder. That which causes a disorder can be found with the empirical method and falls under science" does not follow logic. That is the same as saying that "high cholesterol is a heart attack" it is not the disorder or disease but rather one way that it could be caused to manifest. Mental disorders have been shown to have multiple causes and unknown causes. We can see that direct injury to the brain, communicable disease affecting the brain, biochemical causes, and environmental/sociological and economic challenges can all be causes of mental disorders. Pro should address how causes are the disorder to clarify however, that does nothing to prove any type of claim that phobias are pseudo-science.
The God of Christianity is real.

1. A. He gives the people the chance to make their own decision to do good or evil B. He knows where evil is and he sends his followers to make it right C. He already did when the Anti-Christ comes he will come back to earth and take his followers home 2. My argument A. Do you think that life can only reside on this earth by coincidence if it was just a little bit closer to the sun it would be a desert if it was a little bit away from the sun it would be an ice age forever
The God of Christianity is real.

Thanks Pro. This should be a nice debate... Argument 1: The problem of Evil. 1. God is pure, all powerful, and all knowing. 2. If god was pure, he would have the will to destroy evil. 3. If god was all knowing, he would know where to find evil and how to destroy it. 4. If god was all powerful, he would be able to destiny evil. 5. Evil exists. Therefore, god cannot. Argument 2: In order to prove there is a god, there has to be a need for one in order to explain the mechanics of our universe. There is no need for one Simultaneous causation This is the idea that cause and effect can happen simultaneously. The cause of the Universe could have happened at the same time of it's effect. Let's say we have atoms A, B, and C. If atom A causes atom B, then atom B would cause atom C, and atom C would cause atom A. Why should we accept God over simultaneous causation? Thanks.
RESOLVED: All debate resolutions should not be one sided

I will respond to my opponent's claims. "Farming their win ratio... speaks so much of their character." Not necessarily. They may simply be trying to prove dissenters wrong or seeking a challenge, as in this debate: http://www.debate.org... "Forced to post... they get mad and remove your argument" No one forces you to post anything. An ordinary user can only have your argument removed if it is spam or otherwise breaks the TOS. "Debates such as X and Y..." As long as someone is willing to argue against it, there is nothing wrong with it. Even if no one takes it, the debate simply expires, so there is no reason to restrict these types of resolutions. People should continue making whatever resolutions they want.
RESOLVED: All debate resolutions should not be one sided

I am tired of people posting one sided debates. They are just farming their own win to loss ratio on a debate website, speaks so much of their character. You are forced to post bizarre, off the wall arguments, but then they get mad and remove your argument; they were expecting a free win. Debates such as http://www.debate.org... and http://www.debate.org... are prime examples. Please stop making one sided resolutions. If you agree vote Affirmation.
RESOLVED: All debate resolutions should not be one sided

Possible reasons to make one-sided arguments [unaddressed from R1]:. People might want to challenge themselves by taking the opposite side [see my R1 for example], or they might want to prove their point to the opposition [since even one-sided arguments usually have opposition]. "They do not allow you to attack from original angles." This is completely false. How could they stop you? As I said last round, they can only have your argument removed if it violates the TOS. Attacking a debate from an original angle is not a breach of the TOS, so they can do nothing about it. One-sided debates allow for a greater challenge. Also, both sides must agree to debate, so no one is hurt by these. There is no problem with one-sided resolutions.
RESOLVED: All debate resolutions should not be one sided

I would like to clarify the purpose of this debate. RESOLVED: All debate resolutions SHOULD not be one sided. I am questioning the ethics of one sided debates. Of course avoiding one sided debates would solve there useless existence, but why even make them? Why would someone do such a thing? To show off a better a win-loss ratio perhaps? One sided debates are for selfish, vain people that have nothing better to do. And not only is the existence of these topics bad, but also this. They do not allow you to attack from original angles. So now not only did they rig the debate, but they also don't allow you to stretch the parameters, or even question the idea of what they propose. In conclusion, only a controversial topic leads to prope
india have a chance of winning of winning the world cup

I really do not feel India have a chance of winning the world cup they have been losing in the test series against Australia and also in the Carlton mid series.with strong teams like Australia and south Africa with a killer batting and bowlIng line up.to add to that i would say India have a completely new team.how many same players who played the 2011 world cup are playing?4?India surely are lacking experience and pressure is going to be immense on the young Indian side to defend the world cup