BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Columbus Day in the United States of America

I am glad I got to debate this with someone; I have always been intrigued by this topic. Thank you, my opponent, for the opportunity. I will be arguing that Columbus Day should remain a federal holiday in the United States. Christopher Columbus' voyage was monumental in the history of both American continents. The discovery of the New world made way for the ability for European powers to being to develop and colonize a vast new reservoir of economic and agricultural resources, and eventually along the way leading to the creation of the United States. While Christopher Columbus was no moral hero, his discovery is still highly significant and is worthy of historic remembrance with a federal holiday, as his actions would eventually provide the avenue for the creation of this country. My points are as follows: 1) Columbus' discovery opened the door for a new wave of colonization and economic opportunity, fueling the growth of European empires 2) Columbus' discovery, while not of the American mainland, sparked interest for other explorers to eventually find the mainland. He is indirectly responsible for the continents' discovery. 3) While Columbus was no hero of equality and peace, his actions regarding the natives do not detract from the historic significance of the voyage and discovery 4) The day celebrates his first voyage, not his reign as governor in Hispaniola or the actions which occurred under his following voyages. His first voyage was a peaceful affair of observance, not a military assault. Columbus day celebrates his discovery, which as I said is definitely historically significant. While Christopher Columbus certainly should have treated the Native Americans better on his following voyages, the celebration of Columbus day is still a historically significant event that led to the establishment and founding of the United States. This is enough to validate the observance of the holiday which bears his name. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Columbus Day in the United States of America

Before I begin, I would like to state that the first round will be for opening statements and a numbered list of main points that will be expanded on in the second round. The third round will be for responding to the points from the second round. The fourth round will be responding to the responses and for concluding statements. If research is used to further arguments, links to articles should be posted. Columbus Day, an official federal holiday in the United States, celebrates Christopher Columbus' arrival in the Americas. It is celebrated on the second Monday of October, around the date of Columbus' historic voyage. I argue that Columbus Day should not be an official federal holiday because it celebrates a man who was not a hero but a villain, and who was a poor role model for Americans. 1. Columbus' actions led to events that destroyed Native American societies. 2. Columbus committed many human rights violations. 3. Columbus' actions led to events that destroyed African societies. 4. Columbus supported slavery. 5. Columbus never reached territory that is in modern-day United States. 6. Columbus was not the first European to reach the Americas. Although some might argue that Columbus was respectable, that opinion should not be imposed on every American. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.infoplease.com...
Yasuo is broken

Yasuo has to passive that are pretty overpowered themselves. 1). x2 Crit Damage2). Passive Shield Unlike any other champ, Yasuo is the only one in the entire game that can get 100% critical strike just from two items. Because of this, it is very easy for a Yasuo that is going 0/5 early game to catch up and do great damage. Yasuo also has a shield that he gets blocking damage which is useful for engaging and this shield fills back up within seconds. This shield also refills INSTANTLY initiating his ultimate The reason why Yasuo is mostly hated now days is because of his w, "windwall". Yasuo can block almost every single enemy attack just by throwing his windwall down. This plays extremely useful against ADCs and ranged champs. Yasuo's E can easily dodge predictable skill shots from enemy ADCs and ranged champ and it has a less than 1 cool down He can ult off ANY knockup He's also manaless
Yasuo is broken

Yasuo is not broken. He is balanced. The only reason to ban him if if you're in low elo and you know your teammates will feed. His win rate is not that great, (only 49%) and is easily focused down if he is the only lane doing well. Hes like Teemo... hes annoying and people don't want to play with or against him, but all in all, he is not that great.
Net neutrality

Ok For the last time I never said Net Neutrality. (which I'm now just going to say NN for) has been a law. I said I was a founding principle of the internet. If in your last round you claim I said it was a law you're either intentionally using a straw man or your an idiot. Then you say ebay and amazon couldn't pay to have other online shopping sites block because of anti-trust laws. Also in your final paragraph you say I never addressed you anti-trust argument. Yes I did earlier I just got tired of doing it every round. I will say it again. Anti-trust laws don't work because regulation of ISP's are horrible. Then you say that FCC guy wasn't payed by ISP's and even if he does it doesn't matter. 1. Yes he was funded by version 2. You would trust people who are getting payed by people to talk their side. So if Bud light payed a scientist to say you should drink 10,000 of these every year because it's super good for you you would trust him? If you say no same principle applies here. And I already addressed you're final paragraph. Like I said either way NN passed the FCC. I'm happy about it. The internet will continue to be a awesome place. One more thing. You mentioned government regulation like it should never exist. However in some situations it should be there. You're for affirmative action on your big issues page. Government regulation. Am I saying NN is as important as minorities having equal rights, no. However in some situations government should have regulations.
Net neutrality

Pro's entire argument reduces to a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions, with no support in any factual evidence. The lack of factual evidence is telling, because the simple truth is that there isn't any factual evidence to support Pro's assertions. For example, Pro continues to assert that "net neutrality has always existed." But as I've said previously, that's simply untrue. Pro said to "google it," so I did, and this is what I found: "Until 2015, there were no clear legal restrictions against practices impeding net neutrality." http://en.wikipedia.org... Pro says that "without net neutrality Amazon and Ebay could pay AT&T to block other online shopping sites which kills competition." But as I've already explained multiple times, Amazon and EBay can't do that. Current antitrust laws already make that illegal, so further regulations on top of the antitrust laws aren't necessary. Pro also states: "Then you mention one of the guys on the FCC saying the threat of companies blocking content is not a problem. Because he was being payed my Version and Comcast again google it." But that's also completely unsubstantiated. Just because someone opposes net neutrality doesn't mean they're paid by big ISPs. And even if they were, that doesn't mean they're wrong. Pro keeps saying to Google things that are simply false. Pro also drops all of my antitrust arguments. He doesn't even mention the word antitrust once in his argument. He just wants to pretend that the antitrust laws don't exist. But of course, they do. So net neutrality regulations are simply not necessary. Pro hasn't addressed that argument.
Net neutrality

First you again say Net neutrality is new and the internet is awesome and don't change it. Again Net neutrality has always existed. Google it. It hasn't been a law it has been a founding principle of the internet. If you would do research for 5 minutes and stopped listening to Alex Jones you would know that. Then You say it's true in many places you only have one ISP but that's not there fault. You just proved my point it doesn't matter who's fault it is it still happens and kills you're free market answer. Then you say I want government regulation. To a very limited extent yes. I want them to say you can't discriminate data because you don't like it , or they aren't paying you a bribe, or because it competes with them. Next you say me claiming they buy people off and that there are loopholes are unfounded. Well they can buy off politicians to not pass laws that limit them like oil companies do. As for loopholes You do a deal. For example pretend in the state of Texas there are two companies. A and B you're argument is they will compete with each other for the consumers. In reality they make a deal to be the only ISP in a city so people have to buy from them. Next you say it's bad for the economy. No it's good for the economy in fact it's good for free market capitalism which you are in favor of. Because people can start businesses and offer goods for a lower price without being blocked unfairly or having to pay a huge bribe which hurts there business. Without net neutrality Amazon and Ebay could pay AT&T to block other online shopping sites which kills competition. Then you say it prevents internet experimentation no it doesn't as it helps the free market as I just explained. Then you mention one of the guys on the FCC saying the threat of companies blocking content is not a problem. Because he was being payed my Version and Comcast again google it. Lastly you mention all these things that where invented and that's why Net neutrality is bad. But that couldn't have happened without net neutrality because it could have been blocked from being advertised. Just remember this all came around with Net neutrality in place. In the end though this debate doesn't matter. The FCC passed net neutrality. The consumers won and the internet is better off for it.
Net neutrality

Ok you say ISPs wouldn't slow down websites because in a free market people wouldn't buy their service and his is only a valid argument if they have a monopoly or talk to other companies. That would be true expect for one problem in many places you only have one option. In many places you only have Comcast or you only have time Warner. Also these companies do talk to each other. In fact these to companies have talk about which territory they get plus Comcast bought out Time Warner so people often only do have one option. You say it's against the law so they won't do it. Well A. people do nothing about because they are bought off and B. there are many loopholes. Then you say another problem is if it's pro or anti competitive discrimination. Good there should be no discrimination unless the contest is illegal. Your next argument is if we put in net neutrality laws it would kill competition and investments. You're problem is net neutrality isn't knew the internet has been that way for years and the internet is great I don't want to change it you want to. Also net neutrality doesn't kill competition but ISPs blocking competitors does. I not bothering with you're last two because the first I already addressed and the other one is based on the idea net neutrality doesn't already exist which it has for years.
Net neutrality

Internet neutrality is The principle that internet service providers and the government should treat all data on the website equally, with the exception of anything illegal like child porn. That means companies can't slow down a website like debate.org for any reason or favor one website over another. How ISPs would have you believe is that without this rule that they would speed up websites making them faster for everyone. However in practice how this works is that ISPs slow down everyone then demand that companies pay a bribe to make the internet go the same speed it used to. Let's take Hulu and Netflix. Without net neutrality GCI for example would slow them both down then demand they pay say One million dollars to be in the so called "fast lane" which is really what they had before. If Netflix payed the bribe and Hulu didn't they would slow Hulu and Netflix would have a unfair advantage. They could keep threatening Netflix and force them to pay more and more. It would also make it impossible for start up companies to go anywhere because they would be to slow because they can't pay the bribe so start up businesses couldn't be successful. For more info check out this video my CGP grey's video on the subject.
Vi_spex does a lot of drugs

My argument is that you spam out debates, this overwhelms legitimate content and makes it harder for us to find debates. Your debates are of poor quality, which reflects poorly on this site as a whole. You don't even debate you just slur out drunken words of no meaning. You're not using the debates section how it's meant to be used. Therefore I will make it my objective to destroy you. MARK MY WORDS SPEX YOU'RE HISTORY! YA HEAR ME?
Vi_spex does a lot of drugs

804 debates and he has only won 97. Vi_spex writes one sentence for his entire argument. Could this be a sign of drug induced retardation? I think so. I am starting my campaign to have VI_spex removed from DDO I WILL NOT STOP UNTIL HE IS BANNED! YOU HEAR ME SPEX I WILL STOP YOU! I WILL DESTROY YOU THIS IS WAR!
Circumcision on minors without medical necessity is mutilation and should be banned:

I am sorry for taking so long on this argument, I have multiple going on right now and some homework. It doesn’t help that the research is inconsistent at best. First of all, your statistics are wildly incorrect. You aren’t removing 75% of a male’s ability to have pleasure. Here some statistics: I want to point out there are many studies that claim that it does reduce pleasure and many others that claim it doesn’t. There are two problems with individual studies. First, the studies often don’t contain enough men to make it a trustworthy source. Second, studies often don’t have successful ways of interpreting pleasure, e.g. asking men how pleasurable it was between 1-5. Circumcision does not disrupt anything to the genitalia except removing the foreskin. This fact is less controversial, and I will be accepting it as the truth in my argument. The best way to figure out what part of the genitalia is the most sensitive is nerve ending density, but sadly this statistic seems impossible to find conclusively. The two most suggest places are the gland and foreskin. These two places are both effected by circumcision, although differently. While the foreskin is cut off, the glands are right behind it and for that reason, I would say removing the foreskin doesn’t do as much. The problem seems to be that the glands are desensitized. How much? Ignoring somehow protecting the glands (for example one day genetic modification may make it possible), so far the internet has refused to tell me, but looking around, I’d say it removes pleasure of that tip of the genitalia to a pretty large extent. Of course, the rest of the genitalia will be unaffected. Other parts of it have very near sensitivities. That was some disturbing research. The biggest problem with saying circumcision does lots of harm is that it doesn’t. First, removing pleasure isn’t the same as doing damage. It isn’t cutting off someone’s arm. Second, it doesn’t affect someone so much, like a missing arm. Someone that has sex and masturbate A LOT throughout their lifetime might spend an average of 30 minutes of meaniful time a day doing it. That is A LOT, considering that is an entire lifetime, childhood and being old included. As a guess, that is about the top 1% of guys. As a choice allowing person, it seems reasonable for someone to decide if they want it or not. I should be able to have myself circumcised if I want. Besides being a bit unreasonable to completely ban it, the best possible solutions is allowing males to choose if they want it or not.
The Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism.

The Civil War: “The secession of the Southern states (in chronological order, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) in 1860–61 and the ensuing outbreak of armed hostilities were the culmination of decades of growing sectional friction over slavery. ”(1) The south seceded from the North for a number of reasons. Slavery was perhaps the biggest reason. The South became “Confederate States of America. ” Jefferson Davis was elected as the President of the Confederacy. His Vice President was Alexander Stephens. “in 1861, Stephens explained to a cheering audience that the Confederacy was founded to expressly reject the proposition that men of all races were equal. Instead, Stephens stated, "The foundations of our new government are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. "(2) The purpose of a flag: “Flags are an extremely easy way to identify a country or area immediately, language is not a barrier. The colors and emblems chosen by each country for its flag are deeply symbolic. ” (3) The Confederate Flag was used as a way to identify the confederacy and therefore the principles of the confederacy. Conclusion: The Confederacy choose their flag to represent their identity and principles. The Confederacy was founded upon the principle that “the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. ” This is obviously and indisputably a racist principle. The Confederate Flag is a symbol of Racism. (1) . http://www.britannica.com... (2) . http://www.cnn.com... (3) . http://www.signology.org...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Your attack at my theory of pendulums is trivial, essentially your saying we cant describe the universe in anyway or form since we have no experience of oscillating and by consequence your reference of quantum gravity should also be nullified as we to have no experience of the universe contracting. Occam's Razor To be quite frank it is a very necessary assumption since for us it is logically plausible for a universe to be created probably what most people would think, and by extension a creator who or what is labelled as God. Next point The Universe must expand into something, what is it expanding into? is it expanding into something as well? what is that something? has it always been there? You see its not the universe thats the problem with the expanding for an infinite time, its whats NOT the universe that is the problem. A string of inconsistency here I don't think even physicists are ready to commit to an infinite universe which might actually require an infinite amount of energy to maintain it, similar to how we require energy each day to be maintained (on top of the fact it needs to contract and expand) Evolution is a consequence of Kalam Cosmological Argument. Energy Conservation. Ok so I understand Energy conservation is never violated but equally why would the ratio's of energy change, surely if it was always there it would also do what it was doing initially (newtons 1st of motion to an extent) so if it was contracting it would always contract or expanding, it would always expand which is clearly shown by the doppler effect and we can't just presume contraction eventually since it hasn't occurred and we have not experience of it. You haven't tore down any solutions because you have no experience if these assertions, similar to the fact we have no experience of an oscillating universe which is essentially contradicting the Big Bounce which you stated in a previous argument. What we have here ladies and gentlemen is a person, who undoubtedly knew he would not change his belief without some sort of physical proof and I am afraid this is not possible and, if so, he has come to the wrong place to find this, I find this argument nonsensical after addressing these issues because, to summarise, the points he uses to criticise my argument is the same repetitive 'we can't just infer that' well equally instead of me proving infinity is impossible, I challenge you to prove it is possible.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

The structure of the argument presented on this website is to allow for the opponent to get last say presumably because the proponent of the argument has already prepared what he would like to say which is why I think going against the layout of these arguments is unjust, however I did not argue whether it was unjust or not I argued the point you raised as it was interesting and I wanted to see the possible points that would be raised it such an argument What you essentially want to say is that you agree with the idea of the Big bounce because of its ability to better depict, the rapid expansion of the Universe. So you have assumed point that because the universe is in what essentially an oscillating phase then it would not of needed a creator. I have used the word oscillating for a specific reason, because this motion is similar if not identical to a pendulum, however we all know a pendulum don't start oscillating by themselves. I really don't understand how the need for a creator is defies Occam's razor, you must expand on this point Your believe the Universe just exists, why would it just exist in such an oscillating motion and if it was always there then why is it even oscillating, the whole point of this statement was to argue that the Universe came did not just come from nothing but the fact that it is now expanding and contracting would suggest in nothing is now turning into something anyway. Evolution does not explain the creation of our existence it is merely the path that has taken us from existence to where we our now, our ability to evolve is instinctive but again why are we programmed in such a way? Furthermore, no one is saying the Universe just spontaneously came to existence which is not what I am arguing, I am arguing that God created the Universe. Let me approach this argument through another technique: Everything that begins to exist has a cause because of energy conservation we can not simply gain nothing from something as I am sure you agree and vaguely touch on in your argument. The Universe began to exist because otherwise would suggest it is infinite and infinity is not possible, it is an abstract concept and thus cannot be applied in this situation. there are inconsistencies in infinity as well. Both these points conclude that the Universe has a creator, God is just an ambiguous name for the creator, whoever or whatever god is he is the creator.