BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
United Nations

Anyway, here's my argument. Here are some great successes of the United Nations: First and foremost it has prevented the occurrence of any further world wars. It has been instrumental in the maintenance of international balance of power. It played a Significant role in disarming the world and making it nuclear free. Various treaty negotiations like 'Partial Test Ban Treaty' and 'Nuclear non-proliferation treaty' have been signed under UN. Demise of colonialism and imperialism on one hand and apartheid on the other had UN sanctions behind them. UN Acted as vanguard for the protection of human rights of the people of the world, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. Despite crippled by Breton Woods Institutions, UN has played limited but effective role on economic matters. Supported the North-South dialogue and aspired for emergence of new international economic order. Agencies of United Nations like WHO, UNICEF, UNESCO have keenly participated in the transformation of the international social sector. Peace keeping operations, peaceful resolution of disputes and refugee concerns had always been on the list of core issues. Since 1945, the UN has been credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts. The world body was also instrumental in institutionalization of international laws and world legal frame work. Passage of various conventions and declarations on child, women, climate, etc. highlights the extra-political affairs of the otherwise political world body. It has successfully controlled the situation in Serbia, Yugoslavia and Balkan areas. A number of peace missions in Africa has done reasonably well to control the situation.
United Nations

It's bad enough when one country, (U.S) can tell another country what it must do and how it should operate! But to have 192 nations bullying countries for it's New World Order plans, is completely a disgrace. America was founded on it's own belief system, FREEDOM wasn't handed to us, who are we to tell anyone what they can and can not do, just because we don't like it? The Roosevelt family had a plan, aka the Bohemian Groves and New World Order, now look at it! The Free Masons founded this country on secret societies that still exist today, this should give everyone cause for concern. When Big Brother can violate our Human Rights as Citizens, can you imagine what they do to non Citizens? Look at George W. Bush and the WMD, we found nothing in Iraq. 1.2 million innocent elderly, woman and children were blown to pieces and injured by the U.N. decision to go ahead with the Iraq war. Not to mention the $10 Trillion Dollars in debt it has cost Americans. 22% of children in America live in poverty, 12% starve to death every year. 10,000 people may have died in the Twin Tower plane crash, but 89,000 children died that year in America from starvation. Rather than spend that $10 Trillion dollars on the real problems of America, we use it on a war that's not even ours. You're a Sheep if you think Saddam had anything to do with the planes crashing, The Bush family owed Saudi Family $4.5 billion dollars from the previous war and threatened to pull all it's money out of america, which would have bankrupted our economy over night, 15 of the 19 Hi-Jackers were Saudis. The U.N. is just a cover up so America can do it's dirty work and not take all the blame. The International Coalition writes( There are so many ties between the Bush family, the defense industry and the global arms trade, that it's almost impossible to keep track of them all. But yet the widespread ties are hardly ever even mentioned in the mainstream media. Or a revelation might show up for a day or two and then its like oh well, what's new.)
I will lose my first debate on this site.

My opponent clearly did not understand my argument. Whatever the resolution of a debate is, the debate is always scored as: S/G: 1 point: Person with better spelling or grammar gets the point, regardless of resolution - For this debate, Con gets the point. Conduct: 1 point: Person with better conduct gets the point, regardless of resolution - For this debate, Con gets the point. Arguments : 3 points : Person with better arguments gets the point, regardless of resolution - For this debate, Con gets points because Pro stated that she forfeits all arguments. Sources: None used, so does not matter for this debate. My point is that regardless of the resolution, Con has already won five of the seven points. This does not mean that Pro has won the debate, on the contrary, Con rightfull deserves five points for this debate. Thank you.
I will lose my first debate on this site.

How the tides have turned. In my opponent's last argument, she clearly had worse spelling and grammar than I had in mine. My opponent even admitted to it. So, Con gets this point. In my opponent's last argument, she curses this debate, me, and everyone else on this site. I only said this debate was stupid. Conduct goes to Con. My opponent stated that I made arguments while she made none. She also decided to forfeit the round. Arguments goes to Con. No sources were used, so this point remains irrelevant. As a debate is measured by the voting system, my opponent has clearly lost five points out of seven. Originally, I had lost five of seven, but my opponent's rounds and response have turned the tables. Although the resolution must be kept in mind, by opponent has still lost the S/G point, Conduct point, and the three Arguments points by forfeiting. Even though she may have done this to prove a point, the points still default to Con. Thank you. I urge a Con vote.
I will lose my first debate on this site.

I afrm "i wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil lse mi frskt dlate on this site. Fck thsi fking dbate, fck studnt althelt chrisin fck him, nd evebody else, fk hm alll, i lse condukt opfdojflsdafkldsa. fdafdjafkldakj;gnjkfaskgjas. hfadngjdfangjknadkjgnfdajgnadngkjadngkjadfjnkgjdfnagads/ fdjahfjdbafjkadbkgjdfbnakgjbnadfgagadngkjadn/ fnakjnfjangkjadnga. Tse r allll frgment. nd splling mitakes, gve tis tu conn, mi oppnent dif nott forfiet agunents, evrything abve is an agrumnt, i mde noo agruments, thefroe i fofeit thsi rond. i losee i should. win. bldgdfdfdfdfdf/ plses afirm./
I will lose my first debate on this site.

I ngate rsoluton, "I wll loose my frst dbate on ths sitee" To loose a dbate on ths sitee, my oppnet hve lse at leest for of sven poynts on votyng systym I wil brake downe vting systym and pruve y my oppnet wll, in fakt, not loose frst dbate on ths site Splling/Grammer: Altho me oppnet's splling and grammer is not prfect, hers is cleerly btter than mine in ths dbate. She has splled btter and has mde her sntences undrstanduble and has avoyded fragmints, unlke my. Ths vot is wrth one poynt, and four ths dbate, ths poynt goes to PRO Conduct: I thynk ths dbate is stupyd. Tht is bad condukt. Me oppnent doz not dsplay bad conukt, whreas I have. Ths vot is wrth one poynt, and four ths dbate, ths poynt goes to PRO Arguments: I forfet all argumints in the dbate. My oppnent has made an argumint, so thse three poynts go to PRO Sources: None are uysed, so thse two poynts go to nither I pruved my oppnent to beet me five poynts to none. The res. negayted. I irge Con vot
Morality is an Objective Construct

I"d like to establish that morality IS objective. Since I'm assuming that round one does not allow for refutations, I'd like to establish my own arguments. Argument 1: General Morality is objective When we get into the detailed portions of morality (homosexuality, abortion, human genetic cloning, etc) there may be disagreements among cultures. However, there are some tenets of morality that are generally accepted across culture and time. Some actions that come across immoral in the majority of general societies: Murder Theft Reneging on an agreement overseen by trusted witnesses As a general baseline, most people regardless of societal claims or time period have agreed that very similar actions are to be considered immoral. The rest may differ, but there is a general baseline of morality among civilizations. Argument 2: The Objective Arbiter is Evolution This argument can be as detailed or general as one would like. As a baseline, what is moral also coincides with the survival of the human species, and also to the individual. As a theoretical example: Murder Murder can be an advantageous action in the short term, however it has many negative side-effects in the long run: The family of the murder victim can hunt you down and kill you The justice system could find you guilty and kill you In order to procreate you must be alive Therefore, murdering is not an evolutionarily advantageous action. In order to procreate, one must be a functioning member of society. Some actions are not conducive to the the procreation of our species (or even our individual), and therefore, some actions may be considered objectively immoral. Those who fail to follow objectively morality are eventually weeded out (due to response killing, imprisonment, and various other factors) until finally, natural selections determines the objective morality for humanity, in order for the species to survive. Argument 3: Just because something changes over time does not make it subjective. I'm not sure how to put this into different words. To do my best, I will give an example. Take the assumption that the Earth is flat. This was believed by humanity until fairly recently. Then, due to some sort of evidence, humanity accepted that the world was round. So, the human understanding of the earth went to flat to round over time. Does that mean that the shape of the earth is subjective, because it changed over time? Or is it true that the world has always been round, but the human understanding of it has changed when presented with different information? Argument 4: Objective Morality exists, but has not been fully discovered yet. In the same way that "not knowing what happened before the big bang" doesn't devalue scientific truths being valid, the fact that we have not discovered a universal morality does not make objective morality invalid. It may just mean that we have not uncovered the full truth yet.
God existence.

I grow sick of this. first bold 'rebuttal'- I am not moving the goalpost. Atheism is the "the lack of a belief in a god". No where does it say anything about science. Bill and Jill might both be atheists, but they might differ of how we were created. 2nd bold- You have yet to do so. You are using circular reasoning. God is real because the bible says so. The bible is valid because God wrote it. 3rd rebuttal.- Exactly. This was a Red Herring. 4th - OK. So Allah created the universe. Prove me wrong. I don't know how many times I have to say this: IT DOESN'T PROVE GOD. 5th- So God was not created and he didn't create himself? I didn't strawman. I just asked you about the only other reason. God also was around forever. Remember the time thing? It doesn't apply to God cuz he is God! SPECIAL PLEADING. I AM ANSWERING YOU. Ok. Can you prove it? I seen some people have drug issues cured by a dream where the Flying Spaghetti Monster visited the druggie, but that doesn't impress you does it? Even FALSE THINGS CAN CURE. THIS IS IN CAPS TO MAKE SURE YOU SEE IT. Last rebuttal.- Ok. You said it your self. All of them weren't related to God. This is a fallacy of tying with Science, where one trys to prove God with unrelated science. The strawman weren't strawman and I made it clear that your arguments are invalid. I don't have to rebut invalid arguments. VOTE MA. FOR THE VERY CLEAR REASON
God existence.

Unless of course Atheism can account for these laws of logic somehow without a transcendent,absolute,perfect and independent mind behind these thoughts.I dont have to explain it. That is not what Atheism is about. Atheism=/= ScienceScience=/=Atheism It maybe true that atheism is not directly about accounting for existence,but if atheism does not have anything to give or can find to account for it the statement is true.No agian. http://en.wikipedia.org... Either God made the Universe or there is no God.How do you know it wasn't 154 Gods that made everything? You are making false claims. Im sorry but....... Is this really a rebuttal? Just stating "No" has no empirical base to it. What you said has no value in proving God.True energy cannot be destroyed yet it can be used up (entropy as I said)It can come back. Besides, the Big Bang was said to have a never ending supply of energy. Still, not proving God. Scientists agree the universe had a beginning and is not eternalYes. The Big Bang created the Universe in its current form. The Big Bang did not create it. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.Hey! That's odd! Wow. It is plently better to believe in a God that created himself then a lifeless world. I assume you prove it was God?The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal. Didn't you say you can't have a eternal something? He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence. Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him. This assumes he was real. It doesn't prove him in anyway.Saying they're invalid does not make it so, you must demonstrate why.I believe I did. I said they are fallacies. It is quite clear of the fallacies of which they are. Again saying it does not make it so. Taking into account that the odds of Jesus fulfilling 48 of the 61 major prophecies concerning Him are 1 in 10^157 and the scientific foreknowledge in the bible are not fallacysApophenia. Prove the Bible. Without God. I will say it again. Almost ALL of Pro's rebuttals are fallaices.VOTE MA
God existence.

How do you account for the laws of logic in a universe without God? The laws of logic are conceptual by nature and absolute. Being absolute, they transcend space and time. They are not the properties of the physical universe (since they are conceptual) or of people (since people contradict each other, which would mean they weren't absolute). So, how do you account for them?I don't see how this proves God. I believe this is argument from ignorance. Something unlikely? Must be God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.Not what atheism is about. The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present.No. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy).Energy can't be destoried. This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.And what brought 'it' into existance? Something more powerful you say?Almost all of Pro's arguments are invaild and will ask for better ones.The rest of your round is a pot of fallacies. There is no need for me to rebut them.
CLEANSING- INTERNAL - KEY FOR HEALTH

*eyeroll* There is no need to flush your system as such. If you have gallstones, go to the doctor, there's medications to prevent them from forming and surgery to remove the gallbladder and prevent them (bile doesn't actually do anything productive). Enemas again don't help. You can remove partially digested material, but that's all, everything would come out in due course. There's a reason doctors don't recommend such things -- they don't work and aren't worthwhile.
CLEANSING- INTERNAL - KEY FOR HEALTH

You should wash your skin from time to time. The remainder of your organs should not be "washed". Your body is quite good at ridding itself of garbage. In fact, that's what your lymphatic system does. As for your colon it stores digesting materials. You could shove a tube up your rectum and spray around removing feces but that would come out on it's own in a couple days. The idea that the colon is a dirty organ storing up toxins is roughly speaking: poppycock. In fact, usually when people mention "stored toxins" they are what the medical community calls, wrong. We have colonoscopy now, we can look up there, in fact it is recommended that from 50 years old you start getting regular colonoscopies to check for colon cancer. There's nothing up there to clean. There's nothing but feces en route.
CLEANSING- INTERNAL - KEY FOR HEALTH

Your internal organs tend to clean themselves, aren't dirty. For a while it was believed that enemas were useful until procoscopes were developed and we could see the living colon and that it was actually quite clean. New Age nonsense about toxins being everywhere and causing health problems are fiction. Heart, lungs, bowls, kidneys, lymph nodes... your internals are pretty clean. It probably won't hurt much, but there's no scientific evidence that it does a lick of good. Although, I suppose you could use a chest cracker and a toilet scrubber to "clean" them and do a lot of damage. At best, however, it's worthless. Your organs are clean.
Gun Control

You're correct that I do not believe in any way in banning firearms completely If you do not mind, I would like to format my arument numerically, as it helps me sort out my thoughts easier and I can't see well at the moment. 1) in regards to the rights given by the constitution, the second anendment does not have language that would stop strict or otherwise control on guns. The second anendment is not the general right to bear arms, but the words in the amendment say "the right to bear arms for a well regulated militia shall not be infringed." Unless you are a well regulated militia, gun control to any degree is not unconstitutional. You can still argue to which degree it is a good thing though. -The degree to which you have gun control is the discussion to have i think, rather than over whether we should have it, as we already have gun control. For example, there are many guns and weaponry that you cannot have already, the banning of which have not resulted in a black market epidemic of people gaining access to them. 2) To address the common mantra of "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." : This sounds great in theory, and may even be applicable in some cases, but on very few. Commonly what would more likley happen if everyone in the room has a gun is that the bad guy draws, then someome else draws to get him, then maybe a third one soes and they no ome can tell who is the good guy or bad guy. More likley than a heroic headline, you would end up woth an OK Corral style shootout. The better option is to try and prevent the "bad guy" from grtting the gun to begin with. Criminal background check, mental health nackground checks i dont think those are terribly mich to ask. Another thing that I really can't think of any argument against is limiting magazine size. Also, to address the black market, yes you could still get thise guns in the black market. However, it would make it more difficult to find the guns, you would be able to find and prosocute the sellers, and also, there would be a limited number of these guns which would eventually go down as time went on, as there would be leas manufacturing of these weapons. 3) To address the violance in Chicago: -This is one city out of thousands. In other countires like England and others where there is gun control, you have far leas gun violence and no mass shootings like you have in the U.S. -Guns coming in from outside Chicago is the reaosn that violance has not gone down, and I dont see how that proves your point. In fact, the majority of gun murders were dome with guns from outskde chicago and other gun comtrol coties in illonois, which shows that gun control in Chicago did work, ot was the lack of it in other places that was the problem. This shows, that yes, gun control on a state or municipal level would not work. However, gun control on a federal level may prove far more effective. All for now. Sources: http://thinkprogress.org... The US Constitution, Amendment II
Gun Control

Hello. I would like to challenge you to a debate about Gun Control. Hopefully you will accept my challenge. Anyway, I will make my opening argument. I am not in favor of Gun Control, to put it simply. I believe this policy is not only dangerous to citizens and aids in crime, but the right to bear arms if on of the greatest rights American citizens are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. And while, I believe you do not support the ban of guns, I think also that strictly limiting these rights is also a danger to the liberty of the people, as in many situations, if people had greater access to firearms, some of the greatest genocides and injustices in history would not have occurred, or would not have been on as large of a scale as they were. Anyway lets take a look at Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun control laws in America. However the city is one of the most violent in America, so to me this does not help the situation, and may even help it. My opponent may argue that this is because some of the neighboring counties do not have strict gun control laws. He is only helping me prove my point. See, even if you strictly control or ban something, people will almost always be able to find another source, whether it be outside the area, the Black Market, or home made items. Just look at the war on drugs for example. Drugs, such as marijuana and others are illegal, not just highly regulated in this country, but people still get them. This is one of the reasons why I am also opposed to the War on Drugs. Anyway, you might also argue that we should ban certain types of "Assault Weapons". I will go into the ridiculousness of the way people exploit this label if I need to in future rounds. Anyway, according to the FBI Crime in the United States, 2013 Report, along with past years (1), knives outnumber shotguns and rifles in the sum of how many were used to commit crimes in every year. If you added them together with all of the other options, you get a number that highly surpasses these. In fact in 2013, the number of rifles and shotguns used in total is around 600. The number of knives and everything else not including other firearms is 3800 (rounded from 3799), highly surpassing the number of "Assault Weapons". This number even somewhat rivals the number if handguns, which was 5782. (Note: There were about 1960 firearms of which the type was not stated. These could be distributed in any way to any firearms category). Anyway, I will expand my argument later, as this is my opening statement. (1) https://www.fbi.gov...