BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Airport Security- Profiling should be used to single out passengers for extra security searches

The United States and other countries have used broad scanning techniques since 2010 to counter terrorist attacks on the counrty. However, it is unavoidable that most terrorists today fit into certain demographics and catagories. Profiling and investigating anyone who fits into these profiles is neccassary because they are far more likely to be potential terrorists. This resolution would not just target Muslims, but rather those who fit further profile characteristics. For example, young men of a particular ethnic background who are known to have been engaged in terror activities, should be targeted to give people a greater sense of security. (idebate) Profiling is not about demonizing people or violating their rights. In actuality, profiling would actually safegaurd everyone's rights. (NPR) Khalid Mahmood, a Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham, argues: "I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn't be victimisation of an entire community". Both racial and religious profiling should be used by airport security to stop terrorist activity and protect the passengers. (1)http://idebate.org... (2)http://www.npr.org...
US intervention to the Philippines should be eradicated

"In giving help to the Philippines, isn't it that America is also benefiting from our country's national resources? I know that we can't reach the help in terms of giving you money but all the policies and treaties that America presented to the Philippines is generally created for the favor of the US. ", Duh, that is because the U.S. is a bigger country, and helps you a lot. "For your information, Philippines is an independent country right now and we have our own global identity that reocgnizes the Philippines as a democratic and republican state.", If it is a independent nation, then why are you complaining. "(1)when US troops came to the Philippines and train our soldiers as a satisfaction to the GWAT(Global war on terrorists), there's a drastic increase on the number of exploited Filipino women around the territory grounds where Americans are there to stay.. That only shows the immorality of Americans and the inhumane treatment to our Filipino women",Filipino women, I owuld like to see the evidence of this and besides, it is not the U.S.'s fault it is the troops. There is always going to be some abuse, your own country could have been on it as well. Basically any country in your country can be abusive, unless you want isolantionism. So basically the abuse are always going to be there, whether or not the U.S. is there. "These are just few of the main problems occuring to our country today that resulted because of the US intervention. We don't just need millions of money, billions worth of medical assistance and military programs but all we need from the US is the RESPECT to our country and to our fellow men.", Actually, you country does have terrorist in it, that is why they have programs there, to protect you and the world. The U.S. is a big nation and it being there is fulfilling its goals in the region to be successful and peaceful. U.S. intervention is just and right. Cost benefit analysis. We give you aid, you give us stuff.
US intervention to the Philippines should be eradicated

In giving help to the Philippines, isn't it that America is also benefiting from our country's national resources? I know that we can't reach the help in terms of giving you money but all the policies and treaties that America presented to the Philippines is generally created for the favor of the US. For your information, Philippines is an independent country right now and we have our own global identity that reocgnizes the Philippines as a democratic and republican state. Now, I will tell you how abusive Americans are: (1)when US troops came to the Philippines and train our soldiers as a satisfaction to the GWAT(Global war on terrorists), there's a drastic increase on the number of exploited Filipino women around the territory grounds where Americans are there to stay.. That only shows the immorality of Americans and the inhumane treatment to our Filipino women (2) there's a 96% increase on the number of Amerasian children in the Philippines where after having a children, they don't want to be responsible for it, and eventually leave our country so that they can escape their Children. (3) Also there is the "DESAPARECIDOS" which focuses on the enforced disappearances of our fellow Filipinos and this is due to the illogical and hasty generalization of Americans where all their suspected terrorists are immediately being caught without the due process of law. These are just few of the main problems occuring to our country today that resulted because of the US intervention. We don't just need millions of money, billions worth of medical assistance and military programs but all we need from the US is the RESPECT to our country and to our fellow men.
US intervention to the Philippines should be eradicated

" Based in our history, America once invaded our country and ruled our nation. Abuse of power is what they did that time, many Filipinos are killed with no absolute reason, Filipino women are oftenly raped. And with all that tragic events that happened long time ago, I for one will surely not agree that it will happen again to our beloved country." "The US intervention to the Philippines will only bring negative effects to our country. Nothing more, nothing else.", The U.S. is a hegemony and being that you get benefits for us being there. Countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and Mongolia collectively receive 53 percent of the region's request. We give the Philippines -- $17.5 million for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, maternal and child health, family planning and reproductive health. We also give Philippines -- $22.9 million to support critical investments in economic growth and basic education. Philippines -- $26.0 million for conflict mitigation activities in Mindanao and strengthening democratic and economic institutions. This is an important point because you say we are preventing democracy, we are promoting it. $18.2 million to continue to support the development of the Indonesian National Police, crop control and demand reduction programs in Laos; technical and training assistance in the Philippines and Thailand; counternarcotics training in border control and drug interception in Philippines; and law enforcement and counternarcotics development programs in East Timor and Mongolia. $124.3 million for the Anti-Terrorism Assistance program to support the global campaign against terrorism by providing strategic, operational, and technical training and equipment. The FY 2008 request includes new in-country programs in Iraq and continues funding for programs in the Philippines . So we have given millions in aid to the Philippines and you say because of the past, they will do it again. I sincerely doubt that sure. Now if you want the Philippines to be independent then start a petition to your government to do so. If that does not work rebel, but remenber to have non-violent resistance. Then you will separate, but you must ask yourself, does everyone in your country want this. Vote neg, because the Philippines are not ready to be a independent nation and have not done so yet to make that spark, expect for the early times of the invasion.
US intervention to the Philippines should be eradicated

This issue is more of a national concern to the Philippines. With the very light point that you like to argue is, I guess it is "not of a big deal". What I want to point out is that, having the US intervention, the sovereignty of the Philippines being a democratic country is being disregarded. And with the engagement of the US even to our national government is a manifestation of how they want to politically control our country. Based in our history, America once invaded our country and ruled our nation. Abuse of power is what they did that time, many Filipinos are killed with no absolute reason, Filipino women are oftenly raped. And with all that tragic events that happened long time ago, I for one will surely not agree that it will happen again to our beloved country. Right now, we are in a neo-colonialism wherein US is indirectly control of our nation and it is beng manifested by the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) signed by both countries. The US intervention to the Philippines will only bring negative effects to our country. Nothing more, nothing else.
US intervention to the Philippines should be eradicated

US intervention to the country will only result to the success of America's "political strategy". For how many years that the Philippines is one of the allied countries of America, still the Philippines is being deprived of its sovereignty. The engagement of America will only bring foreign policies, and executive agreements that will only favor politically the country of the whites (America), and i have seen how Americans abuse these agreements for the past years. America's involvement to the Philippines should be put into stop once and for all.
The failure of the Soviet Union is proof that socialist economic policy fails.

My opponent's argument is all in theory. I have shown that the Soviet Union fell for reasons other than socialism. While socialism fails, the failure of the Soviet Union is not sufficient proof. I have shown: 1) The Soviet Union was not socialist (conceded by PRO) 2) The Soviet government's interests were not the will of the people's (conceded by PRO) 3) Therefore, the failure of the Soviet Union is not proof that socialist economic policy fails (conceded by PRO) My opponent has argued that socialism fails, but not that the failure of the Soviet Union leads us to this conclusion. In conclusion, you, the voter, must vote CON. A vote for CON is not a vote for socialism, but a righteous one. This is not a poll. I thank the readers for taking the time to read this debate, and hope that they do not vote-bomb as many have before.
The failure of the Soviet Union is proof that socialist economic policy fails.

I've given it more thought and you're correct! The failure of the Soviet Union is not proof that socialist economic policy fails. The economic policies were a failure long before the fall of the USSR. Under the Soviet style government controlled economy the law of supply and demand was removed and prices for scarce resources where set by a central planning agency. This caused massive shortages such was the case with gasoline which remained in short supply in many cites even though it was available in rural area where people drove less. With prices frozen in place there was little incentive to move fuel from one area to another. In a free market where prices respond to supply and demand prices would rise where goods are in short supply and fall where they are abundant providing incentives to move things from locations with a surplus to locations with a shortage. Soviet planning commissions were overwhelmed by having to set more than 20 million prices. There was no way that they could respond to market prices a quickly as a free market.
The failure of the Soviet Union is proof that socialist economic policy fails.

Government incentives do not lead to a successful government. 19th century governments had no such incentives, and their economies produced the Industrial Revolution. Contrary to popular belief, the USSR did not fail because of the failure of socialism or the lack of economic freedom that the people have, but because of a failure in the government to keep socialist ideals. Y. Kojaman writes, "The real collapse of the Soviet Union occurred after March 5, 1953, the day that Stalin died or was killed." http://www.hartford-hwp.com... He argues, "From the state that managed the whole economy, the law of balanced development of the national economy, which acted to the basic economic laws of socialism — 'the securing of the maximum satisfaction of the constantly rising material and cultural requirements of the whole society' — it became — 'the securing of maximum profit according to the laws of capitalism', for the capitalist class." http://www.hartford-hwp.com... When the government instituted a socialist-capitalist system, the entire USSR collapsed. The mix of the two contradicting economic ideals lead to the failure of the whole. Socialism doesn't work with capitalist policies; capitalism doesn't work with socialist policies. This economic failure and the greed of the government leaders lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was no longer socialist; therefore socialism is not to blame.
Abortion Should be Illegal in the U.S.

Spontaneous abortion is the loss of pregnancy from natural causes. Abortion is the procedure carried out by humans to terminate a pregnancy and can be prevented. Con's claim is similar to saying the elderly are going to die naturally anyway, so why not kill them. The point for ending abortion is to guarantee that life is respected. Con's claim is completely valid but don't support the legalization of abortion and is confusing; also, there is no rebuttals and con uses "you" when I'm actually male
Abortion Should be Illegal in the U.S.

With your logic of every fertilized egg being a human. Most attempts to procreate almost a murder, and that no one should have sex at all. Furthermore we must name Failed Conceptions as the number one cause of mortality rate. Generally less than 70% of zygotes will even implant into the mother's womb causing pregnancy. From there, there is a 25-50% chance of aborting before you even know you are pregnant. However, you make it to your first month, your odds go up to 75%
Abortion Should be Illegal in the U.S.

The fertilized egg (zygote) is a human. Con's stance on a fetus not taking its own breath and forming a coherent thought is valid ,but those reasons do not support why it's not a human because science clearly dictates that the zygote has human DNA. Con's argument where fetus must be acknowledged by relatives to be considered a human being is morally wrong and is clearly an unsupported opinion. Abortion is wrong because: -a human dies -93%=social reasons -Constitution/Hippocratic Oath is rejected
Abortion Should be Illegal in the U.S.

I accept. I would like to clarify I consider a fetus that has not taken its own breath, formed a coherent thought not human unless if any parent, two grandparents, two uncles/aunts, or a brother/sister related to the unborn, acknowledges the fetus as human being. Provided that the fetus has formed a functioning nervous system, brain, and heart. E.g. a baby can kick at the 2nd trimester. If you consider a fertilized egg is human then we cannot settle this argument we should agree to disagree.
Santa is a bad person/creature/being Merry Christmas

Thanks for allowing me to participate in this debate. My position is that 'Santa Claus' is an inherently good person. It seems that Santa Claus is being exclusively portrayed in his pop culture form, as a fat man with a long beard in a red suit who rides reindeer. But let's not forget that first and foremost, Nikolaos of Myra, commonly dubbed Santa Claus, is a saint. This means that he is recognised as exceptionally holy and embodies the goodness of god himself. He was known for his selfless deeds during life, and also after death. My opponent describes St Nicholas as a "creepy voyeur" who is "obsessed with children". However, St Nicholas was sanctified for his acts of protection to children who were enslaved or needy, and this is why he is commonly associated with them today, not because he has some perverted obsession. One of the oldest stories of St Nicholas, describes a young boy called Basilios who was enslaved as the king's cupbearer. The king claimed the child as his property and Basilios' family was dismayed at having lost their child. On the next feast of St. Nicholas, Basilios was freed by the saint and returned to his family immediately. Nothing was asked in return, St Nicholas simply helps children in need because it's the right thing to do. I must also deny the argument that St Nicholas practises "breaking and entering". The gifts delivered by 'Santa Claus' are only left in households where the family invites his involvement. No one has ever unwillingly received a gift from Santa Claus. Furthermore, St Nicholas is traditionally portrayed as throwing bags of gold through the window, not clumsily falling down a chimney, dropping gifts and struggling back up. How do you think Christmas gifts are delivered to houses without chimneys? Lastly, the character of Santa Claus does not treat his animals poorly, but actually rescues them from oppressive social circumstances. This is easily demonstrated by referring to the song "Rudolf the rednosed reindeer". According to the lyrics, Rudolf was always bullied in his reindeer social circle, being verbally harassed and excluded from reindeer games. He could have suffered a solitary and miserable life. Instead, Santa Claus gave him purpose by requesting him, not forcing him, to pull his sleigh and help him deliver gifts. After Rudolf accepted, he was celebrated and respected in his community. St Nicholas selflessly helps children in need, does not ask to be rewarded or thanked and rescues reindeer from oppressive social circumstances. He has been sanctified for his acts of good-will. This, of course, makes him a good and holy person. Thank you, vote con. Sources: http://www.stnicholascenter.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.metrolyrics.com...
Santa is a bad person/creature/being Merry Christmas

My position is that Santa Claus, the jolly old man who drops presents under the tree is actually a bad man. I am using the word man loosely he could be a creature, being etc, that is not important in this debate and is a "loop hole" I plan to exploit. But my position is as a being he is not good, but bad. Possibly even evil at times... well maybe not evil, but not "Saintly" Nick. Anyway this is a funny debate, have fun with it. Tell me how wonderful and great Santa is while I destroy your clean image of this Jolly 'ol cookie eating philanthropist. No rules. Simple judge who wins. Round 1: accept Round 2: main argument Round 3: Rebuttal and closing Good luck ho ho ho Merry Christmas.
Britain should not withdrawal from the Afghanistan conflict in 2014

" However if the British are to pull back in 2014, the terrorist will reign supreme in that country once again as their forces are too strong for the ANF alone"Leaving Afghanistan =/= Ending the war on terror though.... The US and the British (Mostly the US) will still be blowing up Al-Qaeda hideouts left and right and keep them pinned down, they wont be letting them do what they want and grow again by leaving Afghanistan...."Therefore our efforts for the past 30-40 years would count for nothing"Ok one, nobody cared about Afghanistan until 9/11, so we've only been in there for 10 years, not 30-40Two, Our efforts to fix the country have already clearly failed.... We've poured a trillion dollars into a country that still has a GDP of only a few billion (which is kind of where it was before we intervened), and as you can see from the results, a lot of it simply ended up being flushed away since Afghanistan is still a wasteland with no natural resources or any kind of economy. "We need to remain in Afghanistan for a while longer to secure the country and help it get back on it's feet, both politically and economically."Thats not going to happen with Afghanistan though because Afghanistan was never really a functioning country to begin with... Its always just been a speck of dirt in the Middle East fought over by warlords for thousands of years. Afghanistan has been a lost cause for a long time, and we wont be able to accomplish anything in the country in the next two years that we havent already failed to accomplish in the last 12
Britain should not withdrawal from the Afghanistan conflict in 2014

Afghanistan has been a war filled country for over 30 years, the recent war including the terrorist organisations (Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the Jihad) and the allied forces (USA,Britain and ANF). The terrorists once controlled the majority of Afghanistan including the capital of Helmand, this was until the British and American troops stormed and took over. However the Americans started to pull back their troops last year and are nearly out of the war physically. The British and the remaining allied forces are now left to train the ANF (Afghan National Forces) in maintaining control of Afghanistan. However if the British are to pull back in 2014, the terrorist will reign supreme in that country once again as their forces are too strong for the ANF alone. Therefore our efforts for the past 30-40 years would count for nothing. We need to remain in Afghanistan for a while longer to secure the country and help it get back on it's feet, both politically and economically.
The Hurt Locker is a better film than Avatar

Addressing Pro's points in R2: "Avatar is superrior because it had $300 million budget. However The Hurt Locker only had a $15 million budget. Although the hurt locker just a $15 million budget it was yet such a really well made film that make it more unique than Avatar. " It appears that my opponent concedes that Avatar is "superior" at least with respect to special effects. Although the budget for Avatar was several times greater than for The Hurt Locker, this doesn't really prove which was the better film. This was not a debate about which film was better value for money, nor was it about which film was more "unique". "Furthermore the fact that the hurt locker won the Oscar for best picture should be proof enough that it is the better film. " This is certainly a worthwhile point, although we must remember that Oscar winners are decided by the members of the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. This is not the only critical award presented for film-making, thus not making it the final arbiter of which is the better film. Surely the fact that Avatar is now the highest grossing film of all time adds weight to the argument that it's the superior film. I urge Pro to go see Avatar again, this time in 3D, and give it another go.
The Hurt Locker is a better film than Avatar

Avatar is superrior because it had $300 million budget. However The Hurt Locker only had a $15 million budget. Although the hurt locker just a $15 million budget it was yet such a really well made film that make it more unique than Avatar. Furthermore the fact that the hurt locker won the Oscar for best picture should be proof enough that it is the better film. Avatar is cheesy and boring but the hurt locker has a gripping storyline about modern day Iraq so it clearly the better film. i dont need to say any more ;)
The Hurt Locker is a better film than Avatar

Thank you for posting this debate. While I did enjoy both films, the case that Avatar was the superior film rests on two planks. Firstly, Avatar's special effects are superior to those of the Hurt Locker. James Cameron penned the film in 1994, and production was set to begin in 1997 for a 1999 release. However Cameron believed that "technology had not caught up with the story and vision that he intended to tell." [1] As a result, the avatar project spanned 15 years in total. The final piece is studded by stunning CGI rainforests, as well as revolutionary filmmaking techniques, including technology permitting Cameron to capture the motion and facial expressions of the actors and to render them accurately into digital forms. watching Avatar is truly like being taken to another world. Secondly, Avatar's themes are more heavy-hitting and significant today. Included in these are resource depletion, dispossession of land from natives, colonialism, Unites States military agression, animal rights and speciesism. Compared to The Hurt Locker, Avatar is the more thematically sophisticated film, making The Hurt Locker appear one dimensional. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(2009_film)#Origins