BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is nature worth more attention than technology

I am terribly sorry that I can't finish the debate so I will just post this few thoughts and let the voters decide ... First of all con has made a powerful statement, that she would be dead without technology. Let me just say that inspite the technological advancement that we have, think about all the deceases that were released on purpose just so some scientists could get some rewards and how many people have died and been tortured so that human anatomy and medical knowledge could be learned. Are all the casualties that happened really worth the life of few that can be saved today? Also I would like to point out that medical experts also existed before the industrial revolution, that were studying the plants and knew all their healing abilities, they knew about the energy that flows through our bodies that science is only now slowly adapting... Did we really advance so much since industrial revolution and was it worth all the lost knowledge (lost in the witch procceses, for those of you who don't know witches that were killed were healers, but the church and lords at that time needed workers for factories so they decided to prevent abortions and birth control by killing all those who knew that stuff (the so called witches)) ... In my opinion the price that was paid and the knowledge that was lost isn't worth the few advances that we made.Once again I'm sorry I have to be brief, but I hope the voters can understand what I am trying to say.
Yo mama jokes

Yo mama is so ugly that she turned Medusa to stone. Yo mama is so ugly that she makes blind children cry. Yo mama is so ugly that even Rice Krispies won't talk to her. Yo mama is so ugly that she gives Freddy Kreuger nightmares. yo mama is so ugly that the movie Gorrillas in the mist was recorded of her taking a shower. Yo mama is so ugly that when she walks in the kitchen, the rats jump on the table and start screaming. Yo mama is so ugly that even Bill Clinton wouldn't sleep with her. Yo mama is so ugly that she threw a boomerang and it wouldn't even come back. Yo mama is so ugly that people at the circus pay money not to see her. Yo mama is so ugly that if she was a scarecrow, the corn would run away.
Yo mama jokes

fair enough: lets begin: yo mama so black she goes outside and the street light turns on yo mama so fat her bed is the top of three semi trucks parked next to each other yo mama is so dirty that that she was banned from a sewage facility because of sanitation concerns yo mama's so nasty, she's got more clap than an auditorium Yo momma's so dirty she smells like hot a$$ on a cold day.
should a president be allowed to serve more than two terms

I agree with the person that committed our debate we keep changing presidents and once you think about it it is not fair to presidents to come in and have to clean all the other presidents mess up and if they re lucky they might have time to do what they wanted to do and then you keep changing and changing and it is unfair to the president therefore if we can have a president that can serve more than two terms he can clean all the past president mess up then have more time to do what he wanted to do and our nation would be a much better place if we had presidents like Ronald Regan to stay in office he was an excellent president and he had to get out because his two terms was up we need a to make it where they can serve more than two terms
should a president be allowed to serve more than two terms

My opponents first argument is that: "the govt does not let all the power go to the president" Which is unimportant since you also agree that: "you are correct that can lead to king" The president has more than enough power to become a dictator or make it easier for someone else to become a dictator: http://en.wikipedia.org... Now if we consider the corruption which is everywhere, we realize that its a dangerous change you're proposing. His second argument: " we could assaintate him or her lol" There were 42 assassination attempts on Hitler: http://wiki.answers.com... Yet he died by his own hand. One would think that there would be no dictators if you can simply kill them, but there are. Also its not the dictator but the government which is created by the dictator that is our problem. "becoming lazy or anything the house or sentate will take care of him" You assume that: 1. There's no corruption. 2. The president would make it obvious. 3. The president hasn't obtained enough power to prevent this. Then he mentions great presidents... This by no means has any effect on my arguments but I do find it funny that: "FDR served more than two terms and he would have served more but he died and he was a great president and we kept putting him in" FDR is the reasons why there are no more than two terms before him presidents served two terms because of the tradition George Washington set up. "Many people began to think that there was a sense of ownership about his administration. That is many thought that Roosevelt felt like he owned the presidency and that he was loosing touch with the people of the country. (This was an attitude that was most prominent among Republicans.) So, in 1951 the twenty-second amendment to the Constitution was ratified. This amendment limits a person to only being able to be elected to the office of President twice (only once if the president becomes president by replacing the previous president because he left office less than halfway through his term). So, what was once tradition has now been constitutionally mandated." http://www.answerbag.com... I also like to point out that as I have that my opponent has an unusually big burden of proof as I have stated in the previous round: "PofP(problem of proof) The 22nd amendment: According to it the president must serve only two terms. USA must follow the constitution unless there are very convincing reasons to change it. My opponent must prove that without a doubt its better to have the 22nd amendment changed."
should a president be allowed to serve more than two terms

It is good to debate you again to. My opponent has a very strong comeback but i must say you are correct that can lead to king but you have to remeber the govt does not let all the power go to the president he has a little bit more power than he other officilas but you still have the three branches and if we do not like him you have to agree with me on this we could assaintate him or her lol. but e put them in and if we see that they are becoming lazy or anything the house or sentate will take care of him then they will get him out of office. FDR served more than two terms and he would have served more but he died and he was a great president and we kept putting him in. Theodore R. was great when his two terms was up america wanted him to serve again but he could not he said if you want a president like me elect William Howard Taft in and there went a big an of worms open up right there and Theodore R. could have kept doing great things but he could not keep doing great things because his terms was up
should a president be allowed to serve more than two terms

Its good to debate you again ! Before I dive into my own arguments I must remind everybody that Pro has the burden of proof. POP(the problem of power) The highest office should not serve for life. Letting someone serve for life can lead to a king or a dictatorship. I understand representatives and senators serving for life. That's ok, since they're not leading the country. The whole reason that George Washington refused to run for a third term was because he didn't want to serve for life, which is what a king does, and monarchies are against the Constitution. http://home.comcast.net... PNV(the problem of new voices) By ensuring that no President can serve more than two terms, democracy ensures that competing voices continue to emerge in politics. These competing voices may be disagreed by the consensus but for the sake of democracy they're very important. PofP(problem of proof) The 22nd amendment: According to it the president must serve only two terms. USA must follow the constitution unless there are very convincing reasons to change it. My opponent must prove that without a doubt its better to have the 22nd amendment changed. http://en.wikipedia.org... POE(the problem of efficiency) People do better when under time limit. Assurance of a longer time in office might lead to a lessening of the feeling of urgency to change things that are wrong with the country. It might even be replaced with a feeling of having all the time in the world to work things out. I think that one of the things that makes our government able to adapt quickly to changes in the world political climate is the limitation of presidential terms. My opponents arguments: "if our nation is doing great under that president " Its better to be safe than sorry. We must not take any risks and we must let other voice emerge. Furthermore if the president has all the time in the world he may become lazy and unproductive. "it is us the people that is voting him in" You do realize that Stalin and Hitler were very popular among their people? Also, ironically preventing someone to serve more than two terms encourages freedom. Wherefore your points are erroneous and even if I was to ignore them, you would still not meet the huge burden of proving something without a doubt. Thank you, V0Antras
armed teachers good

Teachers should not be armed; I do not want my children to be in a school with armed teachers. School should be a safe environment, and teachers should be able to spend their time and energy teaching, not playing Rambo. Plus, teachers don't want to be armed [1][2], so why don't we let the education professionals run the education system while we as a society focus on the root causes of school violence, such as poverty [3] and easy access to weapons [4]. Sources [1] http://www.cnn.com...[2] http://www.washingtontimes.com...[3] http://www.nssc1.org...[4] http://www.crf-usa.org...;
Gun rights for common people -should be allowed or not .

You dodged my point that most people who own guns are good people, and they shouldn't have their right to own one removed. Whether or not it should be controlled is another question, though one that I'd probably fall more towards your side on. An outright ban on guns for everyone is a foolish (and impossible) idea, since criminals can acquire weapons by non-legal means whereas law-abiding citizens, by definition, can't. That shifts the balance of power and would drive up crime. Also, how many people want something doesn't make them right. That's called an argumentum ad populum and is a logical fallacy. Thanks for the debate. Source for previous statistic: http://www.gallup.com...
Gun rights for common people -should be allowed or not .

In December 2012, a 20-year-old man wearing combat gear and armed with pistols and a semi-automatic rifle forced his way into a school in Newtown, and killed 26 people, including 20 elementary school students [source: Barron]. That event followed two other mass killings in 2012 -- a July attack on an Aurora, theater in which a gunman slaughtered 12 people and wounded 58 more, and an August assault on a Sikh temple in Milwaukee in which six worshipers were shot to death and there others wounded [source: Krouse]. A January 2013 Associated Press poll found that 58 percent of Americans wanted stricter gun control laws, and 55 percent wanted a ban on so-called assault weapons -- rapid-firing semi-automatic rifles.What about right to live?
Gun rights for common people -should be allowed or not .

There's a problem with your fundamentals when you blame an inanimate object for the actions of an animate being. You asserted that people have guns because other people have guns, but the solution to that problem involves eliminating all guns everywhere. That is an infeasible and impossible task. Also, you're mischaracterizing gun owners. You said that people with guns, and not sociopaths with guns, have shot people. Saying that people with guns are prone to shooting people is an error, since there are about 150 million americans who now own at least one gun [1]. Most people who own a gun are not going to commit mass shootings. Banning guns, not gun control, is impossible and prevents people from exercising their constitution-given rights.
Gun rights for common people -should be allowed or not .

self defense well one keeps guns because the other has one . We all know of how people with guns have entered public places,schools,hospitals etc and presses the trigger till all bullets were over.Nineteen people died in four mass killings over four days, the latest in a spate of tragedies showcasing shockingly familiar patterns of violence. Innocent kids were killed in per-school by a psychopath all this has happened due to ease in obtaining guns .guns should be given only to the military and police for border peace and moral peace of the country and people.
Gun rights for common people -should be allowed or not .

First; my apologies for my crassness in the comment section. I wasn't expecting a reply. I can't offer a stark, 180 degree standpoint, but I can offer an alternative view. Gun rights are a useful tool to have, and while it should be scrutinized and regulated, it shouldn't be restricted to the common man. The right to self-defence endangers nobody, and most who buy guns understand that they while they do have the right to have them, they don't have the right to use them irresponsibly. Keeping a weapon in your house for home defence (assuming it is properly stored and you know how to use it) is a perfectly valid excuse, especially if you live in high-crime area. People have the right to defend themselves.
India needs sound policies not a growing personality cult

well you can say that personality helps win elections, but that isn't the topic. The topic is that india needs sound policies not personalities. You might need personality to gain power but wouldn't india be better if politics was more then just pesonality. So while some people will use personality for good things, most will use it for bad things. Without personality politics india could have better policies because personalities wouldn't have to bend to the majority opinion all the time.
India needs sound policies not a growing personality cult

This debate isn't about how to win an election, it's about whats best for india. BJP might have won but that doesn't mean they'll do a good job. Personality cults lead to people pleasing the masses over helping the country. You are saying that instead of having good policy in India, you would rather have a strong leader who MIGHT enforce good policy. That is counter intuitive. Personality politics, hurts decision making, stops cooperation, leads to crowd pleasing over right decisions. If a law is favored by the majority that doesn't make it right, but leaders concerned about popularity will support these laws any way no matter how bad.
India needs sound policies not a growing personality cult

India doesn't need a personality cult. People with a cult of personality are more focused on doing what is popular then doing what is right. Look what happened with the personality cult of the Gahndis in the Congress Party. They desire to please people caused over regulation to strangle the economy. It was only with deregulation that the economy revived. Also, cults of personality make it harder for parties to work together. Many of India's parties are over-focused on one leader. This means the various leaders are trying to outdo each other for votes and not work together.
Religious Pluralism vs. Christian Exclusivism

Hello to all! _______ SET-UP Pro: Religious Pluralism Con: Christian Exclusivism R1: Acceptance R2: Opening Arguments R3: Rebuttals R4: Counter-Rebuttals R5: Conclusions _______ DEFINITIONS -Religious Pluralism: the idea that all major religions are (more or less) equally valid interpretations of a single divine reality -Christian Exclusivism: the idea that Christianity is the only true religion; that all other religions are false _______ CONDITIONS 1) For the purposes of this debate, we'll be assuming the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God.
Games are too broad of a subject to be criticized as a whole.

I have shown to valid lines of thought on how one might criticize games. I have not tried to show they are correct or incorrect. Only that they not invalid based only on how broad of a topic games are. I have met my BoP. Advice to my fellow debater: I seemed you wanted to have a debate about how some of the criticisms that games get. Make sure you really narrow down the topic you really wish to discuss in setting up a debate. *Side note on history* In the past children did not sneak past adults to see public executions, or other violence. Adults made kids go and then up them on their shoulders for a better view. It was considered to be wholesome family entertainment. In several countries at 13 you would already be expected to be in the military. Good points to bring up when someone claims you game is too violent. Got my dad to drop is argument against DOOM. In part for paying more attention to history than he thought I would at 13.
Games are too broad of a subject to be criticized as a whole.

I know sports are also games such as esports but I meant it literally. also if you did not see it or you over looked it my debate IS about-"Lots of parents and people criticizing gaming and bash it with no clear evidence research or good reason. that is what my debate is about." and also you should have realized (and if you haven't then now you will) that I am talking about electronic games and video games. i clearly stated that at the bottom of my opening argument. also games CAN be a productive source of time. I'm not talking about those stupid educational games but the time you spend online playing with friends or with other people can create some great experiences and learn from others as I have. I also clear stated that games are like books having many genres but the point was that they were being criticized as one big group for lots of things having to do with violent stimulations in kids and people in general. I am arguing that games aren't the cause for so many things to be criticized for these various misconceptions. NOT that they are a waste of time. My opening argument was on topic just pulling up evidence and refuting the idea that online games can be bad for a kids social mentality. Also my second argument was supposed to branch off into another area criticized by people and parents specifically to refute and deny that-kids and children harm others because of violent video games stimulating their vulnerable minds and fluctuating personalities. You sir have misunderstood my argument. I am defending the reasons why games DONT cause problems and also am defending the idea that games shouldn't be criticized for violence, drop in how well one may do in school and ones anti-social problems. And will defend that till the day I die. To continue to defend that I must point out that there was violence before games and there was problems with kids and people before games. Books have loads of violence *cough cough* game of thrones. I had to go through two hours of 5 grade daily in a catholic school learning about wars, beheadings, mass murders and even aztec blood rituals in a catholic school. kids waaaaaayyy back would sneak past adults in rome and get a peek at public beheadings. there were so many mass murders that i read about on a daily basis for school that I feel sorry for people long dead now that I DONT KNOW. also movies and TV shows. family guy has death jokes all over the place. sons of anarchy is very violent. I could go on but thats just another reason not to criticize games for violence in kids and ect.
Games are too broad of a subject to be criticized as a whole.

Well sports are also games. I remind my opponent that the debate was, “video games/games in general are to broad of a subject to be criticized as a whole.” Not, “games should NOT be bashed for instigating killings and other related stuff such as antisocial problems and the drop in educated people in certain countries and so on.” Yes games are too broad of a subject to be criticized such a limited scale. Uno is in no way a violent game. It is still a waste of time that could be spent doing something more productive. Making an argument based on the time games take is valid, or on one about how much money you spend on them. When added up over a life time it starts to add up. If you play a game for 15 min day for 70 years that is over 266 days spent playing games. If you sent $5 a week playing games for 70 years that is $18,200.
Games are too broad of a subject to be criticized as a whole.

yes games can be a non-productive use of time but what sport lets you be the commander of a intergalactic space army? what version of life lets you be the president and do whatever the heck you want with no consequences? yes you are right when you say that time on games can be spent on time for the education that you (I can not stress this enough) NEED. you can post that argument but there is no reason games should be bashed for instigating killings and other related stuff such as antisocial problems and the drop in educated people in certain countries and so on. they are not the cause for violence and just to give some evidence is-I have played games since I was 6 years old and probably before that too. from pokemon to call of duty. every violent game you can think of I've either watched and/or played. since I was six I have become extremely competitive and have become very aggressive, but not in the fighting or anti social way people bash games for making kids become. If I can be shown that video games can cause violence in the minds of children and people in general to the point of physical acts of violence let that evidence come forth. Until that time my opinion will stand and my evidence will stand as well. I am done with the 2nd round