BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smaller First World Countries are Better than Larger First World Countries

Smaller first world countries are generally more astutely organised socially and economically than larger countries who are often found to be in momentous amounts of debts, corruption and other futile complexities, such as war. According to the World Happiness Report (1) published in 2013 which utilises factors such as real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, freedom from corruption and generosity - smaller first world countries are far happier than larger ones. From the list, it can be seen that SEVEN out of TEN countries in the top ten of the report are all smaller first world nations. Larger first world nations such as the United States of America, Russia and China all fall below the top twenty spots. This proves that on average, smaller first world countries are socially more developed than larger countries and this results in a more pleased population as a whole.Smaller first world countries also appear to be significantly less corrupt than larger first world nations. The Corruptions Perception Index (2) produced in 2014 again appears to deem smaller first world countries such as Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Singapore and Luxembourg all less broken than larger (world leaders) namely mass producer China (100th) and the vast land mass that is Russia that meanders depressingly at 136th. All countries that appear in the top five are smaller first world countries under the population of ten million and the only large country that exists in the top ten is Canada, which runs on a similar political structure to that of Denmark, Finland and Iceland. The fact is, smaller first world countries are generally less corrupt than larger first world countries.To top things off, it has been proven that smaller first world countries are more bountifully more peaceful than larger ones, with the Global Peace Index (3) displaying similar results to the previous two lists. Once again, SEVEN out of the top TEN countries listed in the index are all small first world nations under the population of ten million. The United States of America are ranked 101th, China 108th and Russia 152nd. Other large populations of Brazil and India are all over the 100th mark.To summarise, first world countries with smaller populations are generally happier, less corrupt and more peaceful than larger first world countries and are therefore better in the most crucial aspects for the basis of any countries well-being.Sources:(1) - http://unsdsn.org...(2) - http://www.transparency.org...(3) - http://www.visionofhumanity.org...
Smaller First World Countries are Better than Larger First World Countries

I will argue that smaller first world countries are better than larger first world countries.Definition of 'smaller first world country' - Any country on the list linked below under the population of ten million.http://www.nationsonline.org...Definition of 'larger first world country' - Any country on the list linked below over the population of ten million, http://www.nationsonline.org...First round: acceptanceSecond round: argumentsThird round: rebuttalsA forfeiture results in an instant lose. Good luck!
I will not break a rule {NEW MEMBER TOURNAMENT FINALS}

Okay, this debate is over. I'm going to make it really simple for you sign the ballot. Rule 13 is the first violation presented in the round. If I win any risk of violation here then it is enough fo me to win the round. My opponent's response to my accusation is that I am not bound to proper grammar. However, I am bound to creating sentences. Even if there is no overarching standard within debate that makes me use perfect grammar, his rule creates a standard intrinsic to this debate. By demanding that I create sentences I must conform to the rules of gramar required to make sentences. My opponent tries to say that I am able to make sentences and cites a wikipedia article. What he fails to explain, however, is that the wikipedia article simply points out the purpose of a sentence. My quote from Hunter College describes what is prerequisite for a sentence to be created. Conceptualize it as a meta-argument about what it means to make a sentence. Once again, his rule 13 clearly binds me to the following:1. I must use sentences.2. I must end all sentence with commas. C. I must use sentences that end with commas. However, I've shown that it is impossible to end a sentence with a comma. Sentences must end with exclamation points, questions marks, or periods. Once you end it with a comma it is no longer a sentence; it becomes a fragment. Now, onto his argument about possibility. I'm sorry, but this is just stupid.1) Yes I can type my post.2) No, I cannot type sentences while following Rule 13. That's my argument. You need warrants, not clueless assertions.3) No, I cannot. Per the Hunter College evidence, it is impossible to end a sentence with a comma. C) No. .. My entire warranted analysis proves otherwise. You do what exactly? Provide a wiki article about the purpose of a sentence? That sounds pretty and all but I give expert analysis on the fundamental requiremets of formulating a sentence, not its intent. I'm sorry if I've seemed rude, I'm just tired of the stupid arguments.
I will not break a rule {NEW MEMBER TOURNAMENT FINALS}

Rules Broken I exercise my right (as per rule 7) to discuss some rules that were broken. It seems that my opponent has broken one of the foundation rules when he made his rules in R1: Rule 26- This rule breaks rule 1, which states that a rules created earlier hold power over the rules created later and that a rule cannot contradict an earlier rule (in this case, rule 26 contradicts rules 11 and 13, which are only placed on CON). Meaning that since the rules were first there and was instructed to CON, my opponent cannot create a new rule to contradict said rules. Also, this rule is considered null and void and may cannot take effect in the future since it violates the previous rules and my opponent didn’t specify which rounds it will take effect, and not to mention he used the verb ‘made’, which, I assume, apply to the past tense. So basically, that only affects the previous rules I posted, and not the upcoming rules. Rule 27- This rule also breaks rule 1, which again states that rules created hold power over rules created later and that a rule cannot contradict an earlier rule (in this case, this rule contradicts rule 12). This is similar to rule 26’s flaw, the rules were first posted by me, which means that CON cannot create a new rule to contradict my previous rule (CON cannot instruct PRO on making CON's rules apply to CON too since PRO was first to specifically state in his rule 12 that CON's rules applied to PRO must also apply to CON). Please note that I am not obligated to follow my previous rules here because they were specifically instructed to CON. Rule 28- This rule contradicts rule 7, which abuses and nullifies my opportunity to discuss potential rule breakage. And as rule 1 specifically state, no rule shall contradict an earlier rule. I'd also like to point out that this rule is impossible to enforce since I couldn’t point out a rule-breakage without accusing my opponent, even if he didn’t break it, I should still have the opportunity to point it out and discuss it. Further Rules 14) Both debaters must have a palindrome, onomatopoeia and a metaphor in each round. 15) Both debaters must refer to themselves by their username. 16) Both must post a 'Forever Alone' meme in the next round.
I will not break a rule {NEW MEMBER TOURNAMENT FINALS}

I welcome Mestari again for one final showdown of this New Member Tournament Finals. 5 months later, finally! I wish her luck and thank her again. Now to proceed: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. R5 is for final rebuttals, no more rules. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses. 4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round and R5, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null (unless a future rule requires otherwise). 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round (except R5) or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. 9. All rules (except FR) posted in a round are to only apply to the next round. 10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON. [END OF FOUNDATION RULES] ------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. All of CON's rules should be completed with the letter 'J', with different words ending in 'J' being used at the end of the sentence of the rule. 12. All of instructions/restrictions placed on PRO by CON must also be followed by CON. 13. CON must use a comma instead of a full stop at the end of every sentence he makes.
Resolved: The United States Government should make abortion illegal.

Rule for R4: "ONLY rebuttals and conclusions."I cannot rebut Con's statement in R4, and he violated his rule. Not making an argument for this round is not a rebuttal and a conclusion. Therefore, I will quote from a source [1] why abortion is immoral, and should be self-explanatory:According to Marquis, abortion is seriously morally wrong because it is an act of killing a being with a right to life and killing a being with a right to life is seriously morally wrong because it robs such a being of its future--a future, in particular, of great value like ours.For this reason, vote Pro! Thank you Con, minddrag, for such a memorable debate.[1] http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...
Resolved: The United States Government should make abortion illegal.

Thank you minddrag for challenging me into this debate. DEFINITIONS (common words that I am going to use in my arguments yet to come):Illegal: not allowed by the law [1]Ban: to forbid people from using (something) [2]I hope that we will have a wonderful and excellent debate.Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Resolved: The United States Government should make abortion illegal.

Rules: - No trolling or semantics. - No swears or racial slurs. - Forfeiting means an automatic loss, unless deemed okay by both sides. - If you break the rules of each round (as specified below), automatic conduct violation. - No google doc links. Order of rounds: R1: Acceptance and definitions. R2: Maximum 2 arguments, no rebuttals. R3: Maximum 2 arguments and rebuttals are allowed. R4: ONLY rebuttals and conclusions. Con may not refute what I have said in R4, because I don"t have a chance to do so for your R4 either. Definitions: Abortion is defined as the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, usually during the first 28 weeks. All other words in the resolution are self explanatory.
Facebook is just a phase that will lose popularity

DeclineMy opponent does not give enough evidence to support his claim that "Facebook will reach a climax and begin its downfall within the next five years. " If my opponent had looked closely at Time's best websites list 2010, he would notice that Time did not reuse any of the websites it used the year before, therefore this argument is invalid. If you need proof, compare these two lists. (. http://www.time.com...)(http://www.time.com...)Pro, could you offer some evidence to support the claim that Tumblr and LinkedIn will take over Facebook? TrendsHow is Facebook following in MySpace's footsteps? Could you please offer some evidence to support this? Part of the reason for the downfall of MySpace is because of how insecure it is. Children are much less safe on MySpace than on Facebook and viruses are much more prevalent, here is some proof from the "Worth of Trust" website checker, ( . http://www.mywot.com.... )I now challenge my opponent to give a good reason as to why Facebook would collapse and how. Thank you for your time.
Facebook is just a phase that will lose popularity

1. I accept that the word fad is appropriate. 2. For the purpose of the argument, and to coincide with the connotation of the term "fad," I will argue that Facebook will not last longer than 5 years from today. 3. A loss of popularity would be a drop in the number of active users. "An Active User is defined as a Resident who has logged into the system for longer than 1 Hour for the reported time period. Active users could include Alternate accounts, if those accounts are being used for longer than 1 hour. " [1]. Decline: Admittedly, Facebook was launched in 2004, and the number of active users has increased steadily since then [2]. However, the number will not continue to rise. Facebook will reach a climax and begin its downfall within the next five years. In 2009, Facebook was listed on TIME's 50 Best Websites list. In 2010, Facebook was NOT listed in TIME's 50 Best Websites and was not rated in the top 5 Social Media sites [4]. Other social networking sites such as Tumblr and LinkedIn are already beginning their coup to overthrow Facebook. Trends: In 2010, the fall of MySpace, one of the most popular social networking sites prior to Facebook, was evident after a 13 year run [5]. While MySpace ruled the industry, nobody thought it would ever lose popularity or be replaced because it was difficult to imagine. Now we live in the Facebook era. It is hard to imagine the fall of Facebook because we can't imagine what will cause it. Facebook is following in MySpace's footsteps. It is only a matter of time before the next big website goes live, or Mark Zuckerberg gets caught up in another big lawsuit, or any other curve ball comes flying in and knocks Facebook off its high horse. [1] . http://wiki.secondlife.com... [2] . http://www.facebook.com... [3] . http://www.time.com... [4] . http://www.time.com... [5] . http://www.stepforth.com...
Facebook is just a phase that will lose popularity

I will not argue that it will last forever What is your definition of lose popularity? Even though this is round one so there shouldn't be an argument I will counter the 50% argument from Pro. 50% is a good number. It basically means 50% of the 750 million active users signed in today, it can be dfferent people everyday. So it is not 50% of account holders, its 50% of active users. Active user is most likely defined by the activity on their account in the past week. (verify? ) I look forward to a good debate.
Facebook is just a phase that will lose popularity

Everybody agrees that Facebook is the epitome of "modern" and is currently at its heyday. However, Facebook is just a phase and will eventually be forgotten and replaced. Facebook.com released that "50% of our active users log on to Facebook in any given day" on its Statistics page. Only half of Facebook account holders log on per day. It will not be soon before "the next big thing" releases and replaces Facebook. I challenge my opponent to assume the Con position and look forward to a stirring debate.
RE: Vigilantism is justified when the U.S. government has failed to enforce the law.

Here I will state rules that may concern viewers: -does not have be in LD formatting -round 1 will be our opening statements -round 2 is where both us will explain in further detail our arguments and will provide specific evidence and other facts -round 3 will be where we conclude our arguments and provide a resolution -no use of personal attacks towards one another I will proceed with my opening statement..... I have chosen the side CON which is against vigilantism. I chose CON because I believe that vigilantism is very dangerous and can threaten citizens and others in a community. Other reasons why I chose my side include trust and how vigilantes violate the constitution (I will explain my arguments in the second round). who ever may accept may proceed with their opening statement.....
It Should be Legal in the U.S. to Occasionally Hit Someone

In this debate, I will argue that occasionally hitting someone should be legal in the U.S. Here are some definitions. Hit: "b: to deliver (as a blow) by action c: to apply forcefully or suddenly" http://www.merriam-webster.com...[1] Occasionally: "on occasion : now and then" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Someone: "some person : somebody" http://www.merriam-webster.com... U.S.: the country known as the United States of America Before I state my arguments, I will clarify that I do not mean hitting with intent to cause permanent physical injury or death. I mean an occasional slap upside the head, or a good punch. Of course, there should be other limitations, such as instances were the action becomes addicting. Argument 1) Stress relief. By occasionally slapping/hitting someone, a great deal of stress is released by the person doing the hitting, especially if they are hitting the person causing the stress. This would decrease general feelings of anger and animosity, which could possibly result in criminal activity. Argument 2) Education. By being hit, a person learns instinctively to avoid the action which caused the hitting. Think of the things that could be learned through such a method of teaching! Argument 3) Conflict resolution. By engaging in fistfights instead of going to the police every time there is conflict, citizens will save many taxpayer dollars. Argument 4) Exercise. We all know that obesity is a problem in America. By legalizing hitting, Americans can resolve their problems while toughening up their fat, weakling bodies. This would result in longer lifespans, greater quality of life, and improved confidence. Argument 5) Breeding. By allowing hitting, certain individuals will pwn others. This will aid natural selection, as the wimpier individuals will not find mates. This will greatly improve the awesomeness of the general American population. Argument 6) American doctrine. As Americans, we believe that all Men have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By thwacking the head of the annoying person next to me, I pursue Happiness, as the action gives me great pleasure. The person next to me, who may not initially enjoy the thwacking, will ultimately benefit from it; he will cease to be annoying, which will improve his overall chances of survival. Thus he is granted additional Life. My opponent may begin his argument. Good luck.
fuzail

The economic theories of Fuzail are all insubstantial. They are just that, theories. Creating four new States, each with its laws contradicting the constitution in its own way as a dry run to test the future of the United States of America's economy is insane. These States may be populated by prisoners, and penal colonies have worked in the past (Australia), but who's to say they will play along? Mexico and Canada may also not agree to us taking their land by force to create these new States.
Converting Repeating Decimals to Fractions using Algebraic Method is Invalid

I am taking the Con on this and I assert that Pro has the BoP. Seeing as how the following method is a fairly well known and well accepted method for converting repeating decimals to fractions, Con feels Pro has the BoP to show it is an invalid method.Invalid, in this debate means that this method will fail to arrive at the correct result at last for one or more cases (one case is enough to prove it is invalid).Here are two examples of this method in use (anywhere you see repeated numbers followed by "...", this indicates it repeats infinitely):1) Show 0.999... = 1 Multiply 0.999... times 1010 * 0.999... = 9.999...This is clearly 9 plus the original value:10 * 0.999... = 9 + 0. 999...--> subtract 0.999... from both sides10 * 0.999... - 0.999... = 9--> factor out 0.999...0.999... * (10 - 1) = 9--> divide both sides by 9 to arrive at0.999... = 9/9 = 1Usually one makes things look simpler by defining x = 0.999..., then this argument looks quite a bit cleaner:10x = 9 + x --> 9x = 9 --> x = 9/9 = 1, therefore x = 0.999... = 12) Show that 0.9898... = 98/99x = 0.9898...100x = 98.9898... = 98 + 0.9898... = 98 + x--> solve100x = 98 + x --> 99x = 98 --> x = 98/99Con has given two examples of using the "algebraic" method to convert repeating decimals to fractions. Pro now has the BoP to show that one or both of these methods is invalid or to give a counterexample where this method would be invalid (note it must be invalid when applied to the problem of finding the fractional value for a repeating decimal).This debate is 2 rounds long. Pro should give the entirety of their case in Round 1 and Round 2 will be for Con to rebut any of Pro's claims and for Con to respond to Con's Round 2 rebuttals.As this debate is likely to hinge on the existence or nonexistence of a counterexample, both Pro and Con may present new examples in both rounds. The only stipulation is that these examples should be used to rebut/support statements previously made (so for instance, Con should not wait until Round 2 to present a counterexample).
Converting Repeating Decimals to Fractions using Algebraic Method is Invalid

You lost me there, Mr. Math.First off, following the logic of your original proof, 1.000...000 (elipses denotes infinity zeros) 00006 would equal 1, too. How could it not? You are making up for the fact that .999 doesn't equal 1 with just adding an infinite amount of them, thus making it impossible to disprove because there is no number larger than infinity. When one uses infinity in the way you are, things can get weird..999 repeating doesn't equal 1 for the very same reason that 1.000...000 (elipses denotes infity zeros) + infinity 9's doesn't equal 1. The way you are using infinity, many many numbers can 'equal' 1 simply because of the nature of infinity. So far all intesnive purposes, .999 to the infinity equals 1 unless we can find a number larger than infinity, but that doesn't mean it really is. It just means that it's using infinity.Watch an example of how infinity can be used to distort:(1) Take the number .999 to the infinity(2) Subtract .099999 to the infinity(3) Guess what, .999 to the infinity is STILL .999 to the infinity (supposedly still 1) . Try subtracting the same numbers from 1 and you end up with .900...00001(4) One of the most important things about numbers that are the same is that they can DO THE SAME THINGS EXACTLY THE SAME WAY EVERY FREAKING TIMEWatch another example of how easily infinity can be used to distort:(1) take the number pi (3.141592...) (2) add up all the bits(3) 3.00 + 0.10 + 0.040......(4) All these bits MUST equal infinity because the series doesn't end -- infinite fodder for the number infinity to use to make itself infinity! (5) That's the nature of infinity. It simply does whatever you want it to. It can make numbers infinitely close to a number such that no number can be used to prove otherwise. It can make any infinitely repeating series infinity or zero. It really doesn't prove anything.So in conclusion, .999 to the infinity doesn't equal 1 because of the fallacy of infinity.