BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The aztecs were salvages

In his last rebuttal my opponent offered no attack and no counter-definition against my definition, in fact he refers to my definition. This means that my definition has been accepted and it will serve as the standard for the term savage within the debate. As it stands both debaters accept the definition ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy as the standard for the term savage. On to defend my case... On my first point, as soon as my opponent said the word, "They did this because..." he began to justify their actions he also does this with my cannibalism example. While his points are valid it is important to remember that we already accepted the definition of ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy, as the standard for the term savage. At the point of which he justifies instead of refutes he concedes the point. He accepted their actions to be true by justifying and explaining them, and he accepted the actions to be savage like when he accepted the definition. He has failed to show how those actions are not savage like, he has only explained why they did them. My opponent also justified cannibalism. Once again this does nothing to further his position in fact it only bolsters mine because he agrees that these actions occurred. Just because my opponent can explain why they ate human flesh and tore the beating hearts out of people's chests out of fear that the sun wouldn't rise the next day, does not mean that my opponent has shown that the Aztecs were not savages. In the end he has only shown you how they ARE savages. In fact, he has explained how they ARE savages in great detail. This argument can be cross applied to his entire case (as it establishes the exact same thing). Furthermore he assumed that I used Wikipedia. The assertion that the Aztecs perpetrated human sacrifices and partook in cannibalism are echoed in articles all over the Internet. I don't have to go to Wikipedia to tell you something that is plastered all over the Internet. Human Sacrifice: http://www.mnsu.edu... http://images.google.com... http://www.aztec-history.com... http://www.aztec-indians.com... My opponent... (Once again, wikipedia is not the only place where you can find people talking about human sacrifices and Aztecs) Aztec Cannibalism http://www.latinamericanstudies.org... http://www.plu.edu... http://www.spiritus-temporis.com... http://www.plu.edu... My opponent... (wikipedia is not the only site where you can find evidence that the Aztecs practiced cannibalism). Furthermore, just because both my opponent and I can explain why the Aztecs cannibalized and cut beating hearts of people's chests, that doesn't mean we have shown them to be savages or disprove them to be savages. The proof comes in the standard that my opponent and I accepted (the definition of savage- ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy). He has Shown you how they Aztecs meet this standard thus my opponent and I have both shown you how and why I ought to win this debate. Thank you.
The aztecs were salvages

I will first attack,then state my case My opponent's contention1-Human sacrifices are a prime example of savage behavior on the part of the Aztecs. He also said Human sacrifices are a prime example of savage behavior on the part of the Aztecs. They did this because the Aztecs sacrificed because of something known as tonalli which means animating spirit. it was to be found in the blood of humans when one becomes frightened. Without the sacrifice, all motion stops, even the movement of the sun. So when the Aztecs made their sacrifices, as far as they were concerned, they were keeping the sun from halting in its orbit. He also said cannibalism and human sacrificial rituals. Also consider the definition of savage, ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy. They Aztecs did this because at one extreme, anthropologist Marvin Harris, author of Cannibals and Kings, has suggested that the flesh of the victims was a part of an aristocratic diet as a reward, since the Aztec diet was lacking in proteins. My opponent used wikipedia. Now I will state my case Contention 1-The Aztecs religion required them to be ferocious As all other Mesoamerican cultures, the Aztecs played a variant of the Mesoamerican ballgame, named tlachtli or ollamaliztli in Nahuatl. The game was played with a ball of solid rubber , called an olli, whence derives the Spanish word for rubber, hule. The players hit the ball with their hips, knees, and elbows and had to pass the ball through a stone ring to automatically win. The practice of the ballgame carried religious and mythological meanings and also served as sport.In which the loser lost their life.
The aztecs were salvages

Allow me to stat with a disclaimer... I'm not a racist (I'm actually part Native American so I am within my rights to make the following claims). Furthermore, I am not demonizing the Aztec culture, I am merely pointing out an aspect (or aspects of) their culture that are considered to reflect the characteristics of savagery by a modern day standard. Let's start by first establishing what a savage actually is. I savage is defined in the Princeton Word Dictionary as "ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy". This broad definition, from a credible source, can be applied to any standard of the word savage that my opponent presents. In this light, even if my opponent claims that the term savage is relative my definition would still stand. Now, how does this definition link to Aztecs? One might ask them self, how is it that one can assert that the Aztecs were savages? Is it not true that the Aztecs were a powerful and great people whose achievements archeologically and culturally stand today as a foreign and unprecedented ancient standard. Is it also not true that the Aztecs had an extensive hegemonic empire with an organized government? Yet these are not the standards that establish the Aztecs as NOT savages. Since we have defined the term savage as ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy, the cultural standard that I point to is their religion (specifically the act of offering human sacrifices). Human sacrifices are a prime example of savage behavior on the part of the Aztecs. In 1487, the Aztecs reported that they sacrificed 84,400 prisoners over the course of four days, although experts think that the number is closer to 2,000 the number is still staggering. When evaluating savagery one must also take cannibalism into account. Historians also are beginning to conclude that cannibalism was also a part of Aztec culture. Consider: cannibalism and human sacrificial rituals. Also consider the definition of savage, ferocious: marked by extreme and violent energy. With this weighed against my opponent he will be hard pressed to assert that the Aztecs were not savages. The cultural achievements are irrelevant. Thank you and vote affirmative.
On Balance, Ronald Reagan was a bad president.

ConclusionsAs president, Reagan managed to pull the U.S. out of a terrible recession and end the Cold War. During his presidency, unemployment and inflation dropped, and job creation soared. He did this by reducing taxes, regulation, and the growth of government spending, and controlling the to supply to reduce inflation. The misery index (unemployment rate added to inflation rate) decreased from 19.33 at the beginning of his term to 9.72 when he left office[1][2]. Also, Reagan's cunning tactics during the Cold War led not only to the collapse of the Soviets, but of twenty communist countries around the world! The cause of this was the USSR's releasing grasp and effect on the smaller communist states, which ultimately, led to Reagan. The below maps show his influence of the totalarianism decline around the world[3][4].Communist Countries (1979-1983) Communist Countries Today As we see above, communism around the world has steeply declined since the Cold War. Along with the decline of communism our world's countries, on average, have more human rights and more free democracy. Since my opponent has asked that I show how Reagan affected the world for the better, and I have met his requirements.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.miseryindex.us...3. http://commons.wikimedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
On Balance, Ronald Reagan was a bad president.

Ronald Reagan40th President of the United States (1981-1989)Ronald Reagan was one of the most influential and beloved presidents and leaders of the 20th century. He is most greatly known as the man who ended the Cold War and boosted the U.S. economy. He lifted the U.S. out of a terrible recession that was in place when he took office, and ended his term with a prosperous American economy. His actions led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of communism for 20 countries around the world. The majority of Americans agree that Reagan was a great president for the U.S., and in the following debate and will show exactly why this is true.Economic PolicyThe U.S. encountered the biggest economic expansion in the history of U.S. presidents. The 1980's was a decade of huge economic growth for America. When Reagan took office, double-digit inflation and a high inflation percentage racked the country. He managed to bring the misery index from a record high to a record low number. Allow me to further illustrate the effect of Reagan's economic policies on the U.S.:The unemployment rate sunk to 5.4% by the end of Reagan's term.[4][5][6] s://lh4.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="401" height="335" />Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988.[2] s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="533" height="267" />Per capita GDP from 1981-1989 grew 23.4% [5]Oil prices dropped, and gasoline lines and fuel shortages decreased in the 1980s.[7] Tax CutsReagan cut taxes 25% nationwide throughout his term.[1] Tax cuts encouraged the economic expansion and was a relief for the U.S. Because of this, the government's revenue increased at a lower tax rate.[1]"He mandated large tax cuts in order to boost the economy. Reagan believed that if marginal taxes were sufficiently low, this would stimulate investment that would, in turn, cause the economy to grow and prosper. Later, this should also result in higher salaries for employees as well as increased employment rates."[7]The Cold WarReagan's actions during the Cold War led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of totalitarianism all around the world. He gave financial assistance to anti-communist rebels in Afghanistan, Central America, and other regions. This forced the Soviets to spend 40% of their budget on the military, leaving their economy really weak. By the time Reagan left office, the U.S.S.R. was disintegrating at a rapid rate and fully collapsed not long into George H. W. Bush's term. Their were other actions that Reagan took that weakened the Soviets' economy, such as competing with their high technology, increasing and empowering the U.S. military[1][7], and expanding the nation's defense[7]. He created the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that made nuclear war virtually impossible.Sources1. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu...2. http://www.reaganfoundation.org...3. http://www.econlib.org...4. http://data.bls.gov...5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
On Balance, Ronald Reagan was a bad president.

My Standard BoilerplateRulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.Round 3- Free choice.Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared.Please, do not accept this challenge if you merely plan to challenge the premise of this debate.For the debate, I will argue that overall, Ronald Reagan was a bad president. I will prove this by addressing the various actions he took resulted in net drawbacks higher than that of the average president. This could be re-phrased as "the net benefits we're lower than the average president."Con must argue that the Net drawbacks were lower than the average president.Ultimate, Pro will argue why Ronald Reagan was not a good president (for the US and the world in general) and Con will argue that Reagan was a good president (for the US and the world in general).
The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable.

First let me state to my opponent that this is a debate not a spelling bee. I apologize to my judges if you have a hard time reading it. It is not irrelevant that you didn't state that the terrorists were from Afghanistan because you implied by saying "After the 9/11 attacks the U.S. was fully justified to attack Afghanistan because it was an act of self-defence." what else does it mean then that the terroists were from Afghanistan. IT couldn't imply anything else. Afghanistan did attack maybe for another reason so again it is not irrelevant but indeed very relevant because I quote "There was viable proof that Afghanistan harbored several terrorists that conspired in the 9/11 plot, therefore the attack was justified." signifying that they did have bad intentions. We are not helping we are barging in, and besides Mexico is an example I took randomly. If they wanted our help they would have asked. Afghanistan may not have been fully functional but still it was better off then it is now thanks to the US. The Con side has won this debate by refuting all your rebuttals and making solid examples.
The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable.

Thank you for your prompt reply. First, I will refute your rebuttals. >>The U.S was not justifiable to enter Afghanistan even after 9/11 because there is not absolute proof that the terroists were from Afghanistan nor de we know that Afghanistan attacked on purpose for bad reasons entirely maybe they suspected something or had a good reason.<< This is your exact quote. All grammatical and spelling errors were crazypenguin's. I never stated that the terrorists were from Afghanistan, so this is irrelevant. I also never stated that Afghanistan attacked on purpose for bad reasons entirely because they suspected something or had a good reasons, so this too, is irrelevant. >>Secondly it doesn't matter who is ruling Afghanistan and what he is doing. Yes we can come in and help but we can't go barging in any place we want to and stick ourself in the problem.<< This again is an exact quote from my opponnent. We are going in and helping, and we are not BARGING IN. Mexico being hostile is totally irrelevent because Mexico is not harbouring and refusing to extradite terrorists that killed thousands of our own civilians on the eleventh of September. Third, we do have full proof that bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for 9/11. THEY SENT A TAPE TAKING ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT! Afghanistan was not fully functional at the time of attack. Afghanistan was already unstable with the rule of a vicious terrorist government, the Taliban. I will refute your points later. Anyways, your points are merely restatements of your rebuttals to my points, which you have failed to properly refute. Thank you.
The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable.

Thank you for debating sagarous. First I will rebutt your points and then make my points. The U.S was not justifiable to enter Afghanistan even after 9/11 because there is not absolute proof that the terroists were from Afghanistan nor do we know that Afghanistan attacked on purpose for bad reasons entirely maybe they suspected something or had a good reason. Secondly it doesn't matter who is ruling Afghanistan and what he is doing. Yes we can come in and help but we can't go barging in any place we want to and stick ourself in the problem. If we suspect that Mexico has a bad government would we go barging in and take over control or would we find out what is really happening and then maybe help them if they need it. Thirdly even if bin ladin was behind all this do we go tearing up Afghanistan? Do you have full proof that Bin Laden was behind all of this? For one person you are going to go into a fully functional place and blow it up. Now for my points There was no reason that we knew about to go into Afghanistan only a theory. We had no reason to interfere while not completely sure. Searching for one guy gives no reason to blow up an entire city and ruin it for a long time
The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable.

I would also like to eventually thank any voters who vote for me in this debate. Now my points: 1) After the 9/11 attacks the U. S. was fully justified to attack Afghanistan because it was an act of self-defence. There was viable proof that Afghanistan harbored several terrorists that conspired in the 9/11 plot, therefore the attack was justified. 2) Besides harboring several terrorists, Afghanistan was ruled by a government that was radically dangerous to our own national security. The Taliban were known oppressors of their people and it was in our place to help them. 3) bin Laden is a necessary evil to eradicate that justifies the invasion. Therefore this war is justified. Thank you.
The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable.

Thank you, Now to rebutt your points But if Afghanistan did house the terrorists and did not show them or claim to have them and give them up they are essentially attacking the US. To Clarify How was the Afghanistan invasion an act of self-defence? They did wait but not long enough, they could have waited and go more information then just from a video that they recieved. FOR EXAMPLE!!!!! I will state that after the AMERICAN INVASION for your information. It is not irrelevant because the debate is about The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable. key word being American Invasion, so you did admit that the aftermath was not planned thouroughly and that we did ruin Afghanistan by entering and invading
The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable.

First of all I am very sad and disappointed to say that I have been quite angry in this debate for several reasons. First of all I am quite mad about the insults I have received and the attacks I have also received. Such as for example "someone with a higher IQ." and "I have been disappointed with my opponent." this has gone a little to far. So as my conclusion for this introduction I have to say that you are not my teacher to tell me and I will now tear down your argument. Actually you should have been more precise rather then stating that so It is actually your fault for not stating the right thing. Second How could the invasion of Afghanistan be an act of self-defence when it was Afghanistan who attacked for an unknown reason. If it was self-defence then what or who attacked them? But they did directly attack the US even if it was terrorists from Afghanistan because otherwise they would have given up the terrorists and admitted it. Did the US wait? No they just jumped in, what if they waited? What would happen them and last of all MEXICO IS AND EXAMPLE FOR THE SIXTH TIME. And know I am not implying that Afghans are the same as Mexicans. I have proof because you can check in the Newsweek that it shows Afghanistan before and after and believe me it was better off at least houses still had roofs. And there again for a direct response you have no right to comment on my debate but to merely debate me. So I have been quite disappointed with your insults and you are nowhere close to winning this debate for it is just a mere illusion that you have.
The American Invasion of Afghanistan was justifiable.

Thank you for your prompt reply I'm sorry. I should have clarified...the invasion of Afghanistan was an act of self-defense because Afghanistan harboured known terrorists that killed thousands of innocent civilians on September 11th and refused to extradite them when demanded. My sentence could have been implied as something else for someone who does not take sentences and looks at it from such a narrow point of view to propagandize it for one's own self interest. Or...someone with a higher IQ. I have never stated that Afghanistan, in its own sovereign state, directly attacked the United States. I merely stated that Afghanistan harboured and refused to extradite known terrorists that killed American citizens on 9/11. You would not know whether or not Mexico would ask if they needed help. Mexico needed help during the Texan Independence War. Did Mexico ask? No. They were defeated in a decisive victory for the Texan Revolutionaries at the Battle of the Alamo. Did Mexico ask when they needed help? NO. This is irrelevent. We are debating about Afghanistan, not Mexico. Afghanistan does not equal Mexico. End of point. Are you implying that Afghans are the same as Mexicans? Then you are not only wrong, you're racist. What proof do you have that Afghanistan was better off before America invaded? The Con side does not win. Your rebuttals have been weak and I have easily defended my arguments. You have also made no solid examples. You have made no examples. The only examples you made were those flimsily reinforcing your rebuttals which are not examples nor points. You have often prematurely declared victory of a point or the entire debate when you have provided no solid proof nor evidently, shown any research on your part, nor much work of any kind. I would like for you to declare victory ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE SHOWN PROOF AND/OR POINTS THAT ARE STRONG. So far, I have been disappointed with my opponent. Thank you.
Not all Psychopaths and Sociopaths are Killers

So if your saying people who kill animals are Killers then i guess Farmers are Killers and should be arrested and made documentaries upon for the obligation to Kill animals to eat????? https://nodogaboutit.wordpress.com... If you have Relatives in a Rural area and you go Visit them and in order for you guys to Eat your Uncle or whomever instructs you to slaughter a Pig you won't do it because you don't want to be a Killer????? hmmm that sounds untrue.
Not all Psychopaths and Sociopaths are Killers

Haha i feel like you are no longer an Adversary but you are still Debating which is fine, what i meant was "Not all Psychopaths and Sociopaths are Killers" The debate title, the non-outrageous notorious psychopaths don't Kill humans but Kill animals which i don't understand i think animals are cooler and better than humans, but i do realize peasants kill,hunt animals to eat and make clothes. I'm now just remembering a notorious psychopath who didn't Kill humans and there was a Documentary made about him "Ed Gein" yeah i know there was a movie about him and he was also based off of the Texas chainsaw massarce Great movie anyway the Real story he didn't Kill humans and stored their Flesh in the Basement he was a Grave robber who dug the bodies up and shed their Skin obviously they are deceased so its not Murder and Ed wore their skin because it was his Fantasy which all psychopaths have Fantasies. So not all Psychopaths Kill other Humans.
Not all Psychopaths and Sociopaths are Killers

Well first off I apologize if it seemed as though I was trying to insult you I simply had a difficult time reading it. And you have expressed your argument in a much more intellectual way that is also more importantly easy to read. I question whether or not you are what you say you are....im not calling you a fibber or liar but were you officially diagnosed or you just feel that way I 100% agree with what you say and did enjoy the articles you shared. and wont argue it BUT I LIKE WINNING. So I will argue the point of being a killer so i can win the debate though you have changed my mind in other ways. You admit to killing animals and are indeed either a psychopath or sociopath if not both. And the Desc. says that they are not all killers. It does not say that they are all murderers especially of human beings. So being a killer simply means taking life and having taken an animals life makes you technically a killer (not murderer) just in a less blockbuster kinda way.