BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US should go to war with Iran

Well, this is my third time I debated this, and it is the third times my oppentent has forfeited. " I strongly disagree with you and no one has been able to argue coherently against you, which is disappointing." This is the best because you say you won't forfeit, but you don't even make a second argument, and you've been on since I submited my argument. My points- 1) Iranian government is helping terrorsist 2) nuclear bombs 3) Their tests on us If anyone wants to debate me, and WILL NOT FORFEIT please challenge, I will accpet when i get to it.
The US should go to war with Iran

Hello Thank you for the challenge and please no forfeiting. IN your argument, you just say that Iran has no need for war, because their economy relies on foreign oil. That doesn't mean anything. President Ahmadinejad isn't looking for war. He has said "death to Israel." http://youtube.com... That is a threat to the Jewish people and Israelis. If he had the chance to attack them, he would. He is helping Al Qaeda. He is helping them by letting Bin Laden sneak in and out of the country. Who do you think gives them the road side bombs, guns, etc. Look at these links- 1) http://www.time.com... 2) http://www.csmonitor.com... 3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 4) http://www.msnbc.msn.com... Therefore, they are feeding Al Qaeda. We need to stop them. Our soldiers are getting killed by them in other locations. There needs to be sanctions against them, but who knows if the UN will really give them the sanctions. Any way, there is nothing more powerful in the world than the military of the United States of America. Then there is the threat of nuclear weapon's. Iran has shown that they are interested in nuclear warheads. If they were to get them, what will they do with them? Fire at Israel? Fire at Iraq or other allies? Give them to terrorist? It would be a disaster. There is also very suspicious activity at nuclear going on at nuclear power plants. http://en.wikipedia.org... I don't see why you need anti aircraft guns protecting your nuclear facility. It is very suspicious. Another reason, is he has tested us. Many people aren't taking this most recent "attack" on The US Navy serious. The speed boats surrounded the fleet and said we'll blow up. The group of people on the speed boats were believed to be apart of the Revoultoinary Guard, which is a UN labeled terrorist group. The Iranian government said that they were only identifying the ships. IT was more of a threat rather than just identifying who they were. The ships by UN law are allowed to past threw the territory they were in, so Iran was out of its waters. Also, another incident came out that in December of '07 a Iranian boat was approaching a US warship, and when the ship fired off warning shots, it retreated. Many people have forgotten about the 2007 incident, where the Iranian took 15 hostages of the Royal Navy. The sailors were aboard the HMS Cornwall. Iran's government said that they were in Iranian waters, but they were proved to be in Iraqi waters. Iran knew this too. Then after it was proved that they were in Iraqi waters, they released them without a statement. They got scared. Also, there was another incident in 2004 when IRan seized 8 royal sailors. THey were again in Iraqi waters, but Iran doesn't believe that.
The US should go to war with Iran

I've seen your previous arguments and must say I strongly disagree with you and no one has been able to argue coherently against you, which is disappointing. Therefore, I have decided to challenge you to this debate. One of the oldest problems in United States foreign policy is the debate of power vs. principle. In the past half-century, the United States has lost favor in the international community for favoring the former over the latter. Instead of another preemptive war similar to Iraq, in a country where it would be even more difficult, the US must wield the carrot instead of the stick. Iran relies heavily on foreign oil trade to sustain its economy, and a war with the United States would severely deplete its funds. Therefore, Iran has a great incentive NOT to get into a conflict with the US. We must instead use sanctions to coerce the Iranian government into working this situation out diplomatically. The United States is in enough trouble as it is as far as foreign policy is concerned, why further damage our reputation in the world?
Abortion

So to you human life does not matter? The fetus is human life. It is developing in the whom. It is simply the earlier stage of a new born. It is still a baby. It is astonishing that you would beleive killings baby is a basic human right. And when it comes using someone's body without permission, I dont beleive anyone on this entire earth asked permission before they started developing. Sex is by nature designed to produce young. When humans have sex it is no different. If you are not prepared to have a baby then you should engage is process that makes babies. It is simple logic.
Abortion

Due to the lack of education and uninformed decisions people are ending up having kids without realizing that having a baby was a possible outcome of sex. However once the person is pregnant with a baby she does not have a right to kill that baby. Yes it is a baby, just at an earlier stage. The fetus is human life that will naturally develop into a full grown human, you cannot simply argue that it can be killed becuase it is "new" human life .The baby had no choice but to develop because thats what happened when the mother and father had sex. It is not fair to the baby to have not been given a chance at life. If you argue that the people should be able to control their bodies you are not taking into consideration the younger people who cannot control their lives because they are being systematically killed becuase of this thing called abortion. Abortion also gives men the chance to exploit women and not take the responsibility of a child. If abortion is unavailable then less men will exploit women because a child wil be a responsibility they will have to accept. Making abortion illegal can actually be a way to stop the exploitation of women which in and of itself is positive.
Abortion

Sex is not just for making babies. Perhaps, from an evolutionary standpoint, sex must exist in order for the human race to thrive. But that is not its sole purpose, especially today, because we don't need to populate the earth. We aren't at a point in the timeline of humanity where we must reproduce constantly. Sex now has many purposes, including pleasure, intimacy, reducing stress, depression, heart disease, and OH YEAH, makin babies. And yes it is pretty much common knowledge that sex leads to pregnancy. BUT, this country is in a crisis where sex education is concerned. If you look at the stats, a disturbingly large number of people - teens and adults alike - believe in the pullout method, or that going by the moon or the girl's menstrual cycle prevents pregnancy. People are pressured into sex without protection, denied access to contraception or birth control, people are not educated enough to make informed decisions regarding their sexual health. And contraceptive techniques are not 100% effective, ESPECIALLY when used incorrectly, which they often are, due to a lack of proper sex education. So people get pregnant by accident. And they don't want to be pregnant. It's pretty simple. And, especially with late term abortions, abortions are often performed to protect the health or life of the mother or fetus. But the individual circumstance doesn't matter. I could give you millions of examples of situations in which someone would want to abort, but I don't need to. Because it doesn't matter whether the fetus was conceived through consensual sex or through rape. All that matters is that if someone doesn't want to be pregnant, we have no business telling them they have to be.
Jesus is God

Thank you for challenging me to this debate, this is the third one on this topic, but I try not to turn down challenges. I will use this round for acceptance, but I want to amend rule 3; "The Bible will be used. No other book." I humbly reserve the right to use any credible source that advances my argument. The title of the debate is; Jesus is God. Does my opponent mean that Jesus is a part of the Christian Trinity, or is he claiming that Jesus is the Supreme Creator of existence? I wish for him to clarify what he means in his opening argument. I look forward to a lively, intelligent, and passionate debate.
Jesus is God

I wish to debate an honorable opponent, Rasheed, to a debate. THE RULES ARE AS FOLLOWS : 1- The burden of proof is equally shared. 2- All sources must be referenced 3- The bible will be used. No other book. 4- there will be 4 rounds with a 48 hour time space to reply to arguments. 5-Respect must be upheld at all costs. 6- refer as to which bible you'll be using. NOTE: *Round 1- opening arguments and acceptance. *Rounds 2-4- Rebuttals Jesus is God as seen in the New Testament. I look forward to your opening arguments.
My opponent is better than I am

I will be debating that my opponent (whoever that may be) is better than I am. My opponent is arguing that they are not indeed better than me, and maybe even that I am better. This is NOT a serious debate! ! "Better" can mean a numerous amount of things, such as debating, or even just at life. We will both have the burden of proof here. Better: That which has greater excellence or is preferable or wiser: the better of two choices. . http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent and I will each be trying to prove that the other is superior. It doesn't matter who actually is, just who debates it better. First round acceptance. It won't count towards the voting.
My opponent is better than I am

FriendsMy opponent goes on and states that he is at home and is covered in bubble rap, but you see what he's really doing is one of everyone's past times. That is poping bubble rap. You see that he has the guts to pop bubble rap then come onto this site and talk about me. Now that's skill! Secondly he states that he hasn't figured the friend thing out and that's because he hasn't been online enough and he has a life! You see right now I'm at the library on the computer on debate. org, shows you that I don't have a life while my opponent is having fun with bubble rap. My opponent is better at debatingHere's info on elo . http://www.debate.org... see Elo has been calculated by how hard your opponents are and how hard you try. So with my elo at 1715 and my opponent's at almost 3000 he is an obvious better debator than you. Self ConfidenceNow you see my opponent has no proof that she has been single out there, because it says not saying. Which in this case my opponent's point is invalid. All points extended. My opponent is better all aroundNow you see my opponent conseeds the first part so I think I'll extend that point. Secondly I know it's the bee's knees, but your's is better and you haven't been cyber bullied by other usars because of your pic.
My opponent is better than I am

My opponent obviously doesn't know how good he is! FriendsAs my opponent said, this isn't Facebook. I agree. I was just pointing out that he has better social skills than me and is better situated with debate. org, because I find the friend thing confusing. And my opponent also says that he is on here more because I have a life and he doesn't. You see, when I am not on debate. org, I am sitting at home behind my couch covered in bubble wrap. I am deathly afraid of my surroundings that don't involve the internet. I am so busy being afraid of everything that I don't have time to be active. My opponent does more of a life. I have no life. My opponent is better at debatingObviously, Elo rankings are very. very misinformed. I think the Elo calculator is down, I don't know. Since it is, I will go by percentiles, which are correctly informed. His percentile is still higher than mine, because I am not good at debating and he is. Self ConfidenceMy opponent says that his self confidence is NOW shot. You see, my confidence has always been shot. As you can see by my profile, it doesn't say whether I am single or not. However, the answer has always been single and it always will be. At least my opponent is confidence enough to put out there to possibly bring the ladies to him. I am too scared to do this. My opponent is better all aroundMy opponent says it's low to like his own Facebook page. I disagree, because I would not have been smart enough to do this. If people saw that I had one Facebook like, they might see that I am more popular. My opponent's superior knowledge triples mine. Thank you, I will now like my own page. Also, your profile picture is the bee's knees! All of these people who messaged you are just jealous of you. Everyone knows that you are the best member on debate. org, they would do anything to bring you down. Don't listen to the haters, they just want to be you. . http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org... Since he did not post any new arguments to rebut, I will end here. Thanks for the debate, but remember. .. you are better than me!
My opponent is better than I am

FriendsMy opponent states that I'm better than him because I have more friends. But that is no feet. Airmaxx1227 has over 1000 friends. Plus this site isn't facebook the last time I checked and this is a debating site (hence the name debate.org, see here for more details http://www.debate.org...), so how many friends you have on this site isn't a big issue. But as my opponent has stated in his later contention he states that he hasn't been active so that goes to show that my opponent has a life and I don't. This is obviously due to my addiction to debate.org and shows I have no life and my opponent does. So you can see here that my opponent has a life. http://www.debate.org...My Opponent is better at debatingMy opponent says that I'm the better debator between the two, but this is false beyond comprehension. You see my Elo rating is 1712 http://www.debate.org..., while my opponent's elo is almost 3,000! That's almost double of my Elo. Elo is the overal quaility of your debates and factors in who you face. So you can see here that My opponent is also a better debator than me.Self ConfidenceMy opponent says I have higher self confidence than he does, but that is also false. Why you may ask? It's because I haven't had the guts to ask anyone out. http://www.debate.org... my point in my life usually someone has been in a relationship, but in my case I have not. And especially when I was turned down by a girl last year I have been a broken shell of myself since. And my Self Confidence is shot.My opponent is better all around.Facebook likes are nothing, you know why? It's because I liked my own facebook page. How low is that? My opponent is waiting like a good person to have someone like her debate.org page. She also says that my profile picture is better, but that's also false. Do you know how many times I've been PM'd by someone telling me that I'm gay because of my picture? 11, count them, 11 times. Unfortunately I don't have a source for this, because DDO won't let other people see my messages. Secondly my opponent's pic is Harry Potter! That's just the bee's knees.
My opponent is better than I am

My opponent is better than I am. My opponent has more friends than I doMy opponent has 246, I have only twenty-one. This proves that they are better, nicer, kinder, and have more social skills than I do. No one would have accepted his friends requests if he were not as awesome and amazing as he is. I could send out 246 friend requests, and still not have as many friends as him. They would not accept them, as I am not as astounding and superb. My opponent clearly beats me in the social catergory.My opponent is better at debatingMy opponent has completed 146 debates, while I have only done 15. This shows that my opponent is more experienced at debating, and therefore superior. He is so good at debating that he will win this debate. He is also in the 99th percentile, while I am only in the 97th. Clearly, a higher percentile is better. Additionally, my opponent has posted in the forums almost 4,000 times; while I haven't even posted one hundred. My opponent is better at voicing their opinions, which is also like debating-I think, I'm not very good at it.My opponent has a higher self confidence than I doMy opponent accepted this debate about me being better than him, but I could have never have accepted a debate from a person as awesome as him, because he would beat me even though it is a debate about who is better, and he is better than me. I got very scared when he accepted this debate, that's how low my self-confidence is...And he really does not believe that he is better than me, while I completely agree that he is better than me.My opponent is an all around amazing personMy opponent is amazing. He is so much better than me. On his page, he has one facebook like and I have none. He is on debate.org more often than I am. Debate.org is amazing, and this makes you more amazing the more you are on it. Even his profile picture is better: he is riding a unicorn! That is just awesome, and something I could never do. My opponent is so good he's practically famous.http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...
Man is born pure and through society he becomes corrupt.

My opponent's argument is not correct the wording of the resolution is PURE, not good. Also i don't have to discuss the good v. bad because it is nontopical. so extend that men are born pure. The individual edeologies that compose a certain society is what makes it corrupt, ie drug dealers, murders, pedophiles, rapists, child abusers. Murder is not the only form of curruption, lieing, cheating, sinning, which we are all guilty of consitute corruption. And we learn these things from fellow men, extend the phrase society corrupts. A child has an evaluative capacity, because we can compare it the expetaions that are expected of it. still because also good and bad must occur to an other person, there is no effect to who being good or ba
Man is born pure and through society he becomes corrupt.

750 chr limit. Man, at birth is neither good nor bad. To be good as is requires an intrinsic notion of the term. That it is good because it is, it exists as good because it's existence is good. A thing, action is not good, or bad in and of itself. It is good, or bad in context, in relation to, in evaluation of. To be good it must of good to someone. An intrinsic notion of good, divorces the good from the beneficiary, there is no good for, simply it is good, a child has no evaluative capacity, it simply is. The next detail asserts some relativistic corruption. There is no valid 'society' here that can corrupt. Individual ideology either stands or falls on its own. I do not murder, so how am I corrupted by some vague collective?
Man is born pure and through society he becomes corrupt.

Man is by nature good; society is the cause of corruption and vice. However, In society, natural self-love becomes corrupted into a venal pride, which seeks only the good opinion of others and, in so doing, causes the individual to lose touch with his or her true nature; the loss of one's true nature ends in a loss of freedom. In the words of Rosseau, "Man is by nature good. Men are depraved and perverted by society." When out into perspective we realize that what could a newborn child have done wrong? Compared to the wretched sins a mere five year old has committed. Now if Society was not evil would the following list of atrocities occur almost on a regular basis: Terrorism Child Pornography Murder Holocaust Genocide Abuse
Man is born pure and through society he becomes corrupt.

Ah trickery readers, one can tell from my opponents argument what was intended. A synonym of pure is good. http://thesaurus.reference.com... "Man is by nature good. Men are depraved and perverted by society." The two are related concepts, your argument makes that clear. Such profound sophistry should be noted my fellows - no definitions were provided, it rests then on what the arguments lead as to the meanings of the terms. "The individual edeologies that compose a certain society is what makes it corrupt, ie drug dealers, murders, pedophiles, rapists, child abusers." My opponent performs the fallacy of the ambiguous collective, stating since individuals can X society must X. Ignoring that an individual =/= collective.
The United States Government has to much power now and needs to be given back to the States.

Thank you for clarifying the case in Utah which goes along the same lines as the no child left behind act or even with it I'm not sure. Either way the fact that the supreme court did not side with the state of Utah in this circumstance does not change the fact that they are a Check to make sure the Federal Gov. is not to strong. As I already stated Federal funding is a privilege not a right. You have not countered this argument there for on that alone all of your arguments on no child left behind drop extending the supreme court ruling across, AND leaving you with no case to stand on. "Now lets go ahead and talk about the Electoral College argument now no matter what the US Fed Gov has made it impossible for the states to go against it will only hurt them in the long run and this is what i seek to stop. Here is what i am saying even if the big and little state agree it wont matter because of the simple fact that they need the fed gov which is why we need to desovle the power of the US Fed Gov. This argument also covers you 2 and 3 as well." You have said no matter what the Federal Gov. has made it impossible for the states to over come it. However you did not say why, NOR did you counter my five safe guards to make sure the Federal Gov. does not have to much power! You said my safe guards are wrong because the Gov. has to much power. But that is your argument, in essence you have said that my arguments against the resolution are wrong be cause the resolution is right... IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. Therefore, your entire premise of attack is flawed and circular in its nature. "As for your pun (good catch by the way) those points don't matter at all." <-------Thank you for your opinion but could you tell me why they don't matter. The points extend across because you can not just say that doesn't matter and that be a viable attack. This Brings me to VOTING ISSUES 1. As I have demonstrated both of the Pro's examples Failed to show an abuse of States rights because of the Fact that Federal Funding is a privilege not a Right. 2. My opponent has Failed to sufficiently attack my Five safe guards against an over powerful Federal Gov. For these reasons you can only see one valid and logical vote and that vote is for the Con. Thank you,
The United States Government has to much power now and needs to be given back to the States.

Just ignore the first part it is not relevant at all just throw it out. 1. What is the AYP ? 2. What funding? 3. Can you please explain to me the circumstances of this event so I can refute it ? 4. When did this Happen? AYP is Adequate Yearly Progress by 2009 every student in America should score in the 99th percentile on all State Assessment if this is not done then all funding is cut off to that school Funding that the government provides each year. What had happen in Utah is they told him about the AYP and he knew it was a bad idea so he said no to the AYP, and then they cut off funding to there schools. When NCLB was first instated which since than has been reinstated because they needed the funding in school. Now lets go ahead and talk about the Electoral College argument now no matter what the US Fed Gov has made it impossible for the states to go against it will only hurt them in the long run and this is what i seek to stop. Here is what i am saying even if the big and little state agree it wont matter because of the simple fact that they need the fed gov which is why we need to desovle the power of the US Fed Gov. This argument also covers you 2 and 3 as well As for your pun (good catch by the way) those points dont matter at all. So i have obviously shown today why we need to go ahead and vote aff today.