BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reindeers are better than people.

You talk of people and activity You make it sound happy Yet all I did was laugh At your counter productivity Yes people will beat you And curse you and cheat you Everyone of them's bad EVEN YOU! You boast at beating me And more than 500 characters I see So you cheat me Though a reindeer is honest Cause when called the smelliest Honestly and truly it will say "That's once again true For all except you"
Should South Carolina been allowed to to leave America in the nullification crisis

Instead of immediately trying to secede, why didn't South Carolina try to be diplomatic about it and try to put their tariff to their favor. Also my opponent mentioned nothing about slavery. Pro: South Carolina was treated unfairly and should have been allowed to act in order to help their people. But they weren't going to help their people were they because many of their people were slaves and they completely mistreated slaves which was one reason the North refused to let them out.
Should South Carolina been allowed to to leave America in the nullification crisis

I gladly accept the opponent's challenge. In my American History class, the South Carolina crisis is the topic we are on, so I am glad to be able to discuss it here. First off, allow me to state some background information on the topic. South Carolina had, as did the majority of the Southern States, an agricultural-based economy. This meant that they had few industries, and they had to import many manufactured items from Northern companies. Tariffs placed on these items made them very expensive, and this eventually weakened the state's economy. In 1828, a new tariff was passed by Congress. This only worsened the economic issues that South Carolina was having. They became fed up with the high-priced imports, so secession from the Union was threatened. John C. Calhoun, the Vice President and a South Carolina native, was torn on what to do. He eventually proposed nullification, which subsided the secession threat. This issue was hotly debated and remained untouched until 1832, when yet another tariff was passed. This put South Carolina over the edge, and they decided to nullify the tariffs from 1828 and 1832. Andrew Jackson was displeased and though of this action as treason against the Union. In response, he sent a warship down to Charleston. Although no one was injured or hurt, the intimidation of the ship alone was enough to make South Carolina repeal the nullification of the tariffs. Jackson then had the Force Bill passed, which stated that the President had the authority to use military force to enforce Congressional acts. This bill made any further nullification impossible during the time. Although a reduction on the tariffs was eventually put into effect, the crisis was still fresh in the minds of many people for many years to come. This brings me to my point. I believe South Carolina should have had the right to secede from the Union. They were having an economic crisis that was only getting worse, and would have only GOTTEN worse unless something was done about it. Secession does not necessarily lead to anarchy, it only proves to other states that a law is unjust enough to be acted upon. If an unjust law is no law at all, then why should it be obeyed? It shouldn't be. After all, America seceded itself from Britain due to unjust laws, and there was no anarchy. South Carolina was treated unfairly and should have been allowed to act in order to help their people.
Should South Carolina been allowed to to leave America in the nullification crisis

The Constitution's 10th amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively. " To summarize it- powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the states. Nullification was proposed as a STATE right, not a federal right. This means that the federal government should not have been interfering with state rights, as it goes against the Constitution. Con States: I made this debate to see what the rebuttal is to the fact that South Carolina were mistreating their civilians. If you made this debate to see what the thought was on slavery, then why did you not mention it in the resolution? This debate does not focus on slavery, it focuses on the issue of State Rights vs Federal Rights.
Should South Carolina been allowed to to leave America in the nullification crisis

Con states: My opponent has stated that the slaves should have been mistreated because they were a minority, well right now there are more Christians in America than any other religion does that mean we now enslave all the Jews, Muslims, and Atheists because they are not the Majority. I never stated that they should have been mistreated or enslaved. I said that they were a minority and South Carolina was acting in the interests of their white citizens. Religion does not play a factor in slavery, and neither does skin color or race. Slavery was based on cheap labor and strong workers, which they were able to achieve through the African Americans at the time. Additional thoughts: In reference to the main topic, nullification is defined as a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. That being said, nullification is still relevant to modern times. Nullification is a state power (state powers are protected and guaranteed under the 10th Amendment) and it can unify the states to combat an unjust law or cause. Without it, we would be a the knees of the federal government, and we would have no say in the laws that were passed. THIS, not secession, would lead to unrest and eventual anarchy. It would be Unconstitutional for states to have this right taken away, as it was for South Carolina by Jackson.
Should South Carolina been allowed to to leave America in the nullification crisis

To address my opponent's rebuttal- A tariff is defined as a tax on goods coming into or leaving a country (South Carolina in this case). Tariffs are only beneficial when they prevent an imported product from undercutting local prices. The tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were very harmful to the state's economy, and would be therefore unable to be put to their favor, unless the tariffs were abolished fully. This happened in 1835, only AFTER South Carolina subsided their threats. Con states: But they weren't going to help their people were they because many of their people were slaves and they completely mistreated slaves which was one reason the North refused to let them out. Slaves were mistreated and were common in the state, but they were a MINORITY. South Carolina was acting in the interests of the white majority of their citizens. Slavery was not an influence in Jackson's use of force either; he acted as he did because he believed South Carolina was committing treason against the Union.
Ronald Reagan was a bad president.

Resolution: Ronald Reagan was a bad president.Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Must insert one witty quote per round.Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)"Full government control of all activities of the individual is virtually the goal of both national parties." -Ludwig von MisesDefinitionsRonald Reagan: The 40th President of the United States This guy--> http://img.youtube.com...Bad: Of poor quality; unsatisfactoryI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Kittens!
The earth is flat

The earth is flat. I have researched the subject for 6 months now, and there are more proofs on the side of a flat earth then I can find on a spherical one. The debate format shall be as follows. Round one is acceptance. In round 2, I state my argument, and con can either use this round for rebuttal or state arguments against the flat earth. Round 3 is for rerebuttals, and further arguments, if possible. Round 4 is strictly for rebuttals and round 5 should be used for conclusions but no new arguments in the last round. Please respect your opponents many sources and media may be used in your argument till that source is proven unreliable or the media is shown to be faked or false. Good luck, I hope to provide insight as well as receive it. I do ask that anyone accepting this debate please have a look at least at the flat earth theory before accepting and arguing against it as it has become redundant arguing the same 10 or so proves that the earth is a sphere. It is not required but makes for a better debate for the both of us. I also ask that theoretical math equations be excluded from the arguments, as they will confuse voters, though not to be confused with basic math as in Pythagoras theorem, and the like.
The earth is flat

It seems that con has abandoned the debate already resorting to the usual response one gets from someone with cognitive dissonance. I offered several sound proofs and instead of trying to effectively rebut any argument con calls the whole thing stupid. How did I waste your time? You accepted the open debate, and conceded that debate on the shape of the Earth. Were you thinking easy w? Now that you might have had to think a bit, you're out? Bop has shifted to you now? I extend all points and point out that bop has not been rebutted except by saying NASA brought us some rocks. Lol! http://www.telegraph.co.uk...http://abcnews.go.com... Since it seems you can't formulate a rebuttal, and bop stands, I'll put it in simple form that even children can understand. If you need to ask a reason, you're really asleep.
The earth is flat

After reading your asinine argument, I must say that I see absolutely no enterprise in continuing this debate. All of your arguments are entirely ludicrous and make absolutely no sense. You first, and main contention relies on the idea that the horizon continues indefinably, however it has been known since ancient times that things will disappear over the horizon. When given a reference point, we can see that this idea of an indefinite horizon is false. Your argument about a "hump of water" is utterly ridiculous and In order for your arguments to be true, we must reject scientific principles, logic and fact. In order to believe this we must reject the notion that man has been to space, however there are a number of ways to prove that man has in fact been to space, most notably the fact that we have moon rocks on earth, and the fact that there are satellites in space.We also must reject heliocentrism, and thus basic astronomy and physics.The entire premise of the Pro is that we have been brainwashed and science is part of a conspiracy, however he does not have any reason as to WHY we have been brainwashed. If it is to no end, why would it happen?This alone has been a waste of my time, and energy, and I shall go no further with this lunacy.
Living on Earth is better than living on the moon.

Yes, but: 1)You must transport all the water to be consumed by the present generation and for those to come. Transportation also poses problem. 2)" and we could definitely use oxygen tanks" yes, but for how long?. 3)"And the atmosphere is polluted anyways" But is it so much that me and you cannot live?. 4)Because life on earth has spent the last 4.5 billion years adapting to survive on this particular planet. So take the results (the plants, animals or people) somewhere that"s not Earth, and the chances are we"ll have problems. 5)Let me give you a few examples. Our flimsy bodies evolved under the pressure of the atmosphere, and are influenced by the exact pulling power of Earth"s gravity. Stick us somewhere with too little pressure, and we explode. Too much, and we implode. Gravity too strong? We can"t move. Gravity too weak? Our muscles waste away. Then there"s the temperature and the breathable atmosphere. Human beings have to maintain a body temperature of around 37"C to stay healthy. At just a few degrees higher or lower, we die of hypothermia (being too cold) or hyperthermia (being too hot). We also need to breathe oxygen " but if the air contains too little or too much, we die of hypoxia or oxygen toxicity. Source:http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...
Living on Earth is better than living on the moon.

Thank you for accepting. _________________________________________________________ 1)" I think that it would be great to live on the moon because there would be so much that we could learn. " Of course because it is a new planet :). But that does not mean that the moon is better than the Earth. 2)"From what astronauts have said, watching the earth as you rotate around it is the most beautiful thing ever seen."Scenic view of Earth from moon is not a proof. ______________________________________________________ Live on Earth is better. Why? 1) There is an atmosphere. 2)There is water. 3)Humans have been living here since long ago.
bidoof is the best pokemon ever and mass effect is a very bad game

In order for my opponent to win this debate he must prove both that the pokemon known as "Bidoof" is the strongest and that Mass Effect is a bad game. I'm unsure if he's referring to the series or the first game, but since he didn't specify I am going to define it as the series. While I know next to nothing about Pokemon some searching revels Mr. Bidoof is starts at level 15 [1]. Further searching shows the the best level is 100 [2]. To be the best possible Pokemon this Bidoof would need to start at a higher level, thus the so called Bidoof isn't the best. The next contention in question is the quality of Mass Effect. Mass Effect 2 is considered to be one of the best games of all time [3][4]. Every game in the series has received a high ranking review[5][6][7]. The series contains extensive development of characters which make for a great story and an attachment of the characters [8][9][10][11]. Mass Effect also makes the player make difficult ethical decisions [12][13][14]. The results of these move people emotionally all the time. [15][16]. It's hard to state a very bad game can do all of these things. Thus I contend that the Mass Effect series is a good series. [1] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... [2] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... [3] http://www.ign.com... [4] http://www.ddjgames.com... [5] http://www.metacritic.com... [6] http://www.metacritic.com... [7] http://www.metacritic.com... [8] http://masseffect.wikia.com... [9] http://masseffect.wikia.com... [10] http://masseffect.wikia.com... [11] http://masseffect.wikia.com... [12] http://masseffect.wikia.com... [13] http://masseffect.wikia.com... [14] http://masseffect.wikia.com... [15] http://www.reddit.com... [16] http://www.escapistmagazine.com...
Socialism is more rational than Capitalism

Thanks for accepting. First I would like to define the two political ideas.SOCIALISM A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies.CAPITALISMA way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government.*In a way, you could argue that these words could be subjective so I decided to give us a definition for a basis of the debate.ARGUMENT:Some may argue that just by looking at previous Socialist governments, they were a failure, therefore socialism is bad. I would like to address this argument for round one. Now to address the idea that Socialist governments have failed in the past, therefore socialism is bad. In both systems there are people left to starve on the streets, but in capitalism, this is justified, but in socialism, this is because the system isn't working perfectly. Many socialist societies have prospered, but only for a very short period of time. This could be for a number of reasons. Most probable reason; The true Socialist government was plagued by corrupt politicians. If these corrupt politicians are taken out of the equation, socialism would be better than capitalism by a long shot. All people should be given an equal opportunity to succeed. Workers should have most say in their factory's management. The free market suffers from problems like tragedy of the commons. Government regulation is necessary.SOURCES:http://www.diffen.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...
THW ban religion

1. Religious organizations brain wash there children from an early age. Thus, they don't allow for freedom of expression and for their children to develop in a normal manner. Many children are scared by early religious experiences which warp their values and reduce their prospects of achieving a successful career and life. 2. Churches are hiding places for sexual deviates and perverts. We are constantly hearing about new cases of where church leaders have sexually abused children who were place in their care. Most religious organisations don't allow their priests to marry which encourages the proliferation of sexual frustration and homosexuality. 3. If churches were demolished, then, this would release valuable land for more productive purposes. Thus, this would not be a costly procedure and would be highly profitable for the government and other developers. 4. My opponent says that religion makes the world a better place. Yet, he has failed to list any improvements that religion has made. Therein lies the fraudulence of my opponents claim. 5. Banning religion by making it a criminal activity would be difficult to achieve. True, but banning any illegal activity is difficult to achieve. This shouldn't stop us from trying to ban it though. Is my opponent suggesting that we shouldn't attempt to stop any criminal activity because it is difficult to achieve? Should we retire all the police forces around the world because policing criminal activity is difficult? Obviously not! 6. My opponent suggests that banning religion would cause a violent backlash. This only shows that religious people are violent and vengeful in nature and that they don't like non-religious people. Thus, religious people are highly discriminating people who have used religion as a form of social division. 7. Religious people use their religion to gain unfair advantages in social and work related matters. I have personally seen many religious people gain positions in the government merely because they were active in a religious activity outside of the work area. 8. My opponent has used Sikhism as an example of a perfect religion which has no discrimination. But on close observation; Sikhism appears to be an early form of communism. We all know that communism is a hypercritical form of democracy which has a system of secretive hierarchy which is essentially no different to any other hierarchy. lol Note - Sikhism societies still have a very active caste system in operation! lol What a joke! 9. My opponent claims that the Islamic world has been very innovative and has not been affected by its religiousness. Yet, has he included any inventions or innovations that have come out of Islam in the last 1000 years? Answer - NONE!
THW ban religion

1. I argue that the terror attacks in France and Belgium recently are a consequence of religious fanaticism and especially Isis. 2. That religion was created by the ruling classes as a means of subjugating and dividing the working classes. Note - Corruption can exist more freely when the structures of society have been torn down by religious divisions and conclaves. 3. The Muslim world has not progressed since their society has become dominated by religion. 4. Religion is not a free choice and is acquired through the brain washing of children from a very early age. 5. There is no evidence that religion improves life style. Religion is a time wasting distraction that is based on superstition, magic and made up fictitious stories and other nonsense. 6. Banning religion would make the world a better place. Religion is based on lies, therefore, it is immoral. There is nothing morally appealing about religion. 7. If banning religion causes violence, then, this is proof that religion is a major cause of violence. Thus, religious people are vengeful, hateful and violent. The world doesn't need these types of people.
THW ban religion

1. My opponent proposes that being religious will make you a morally superior being. This is utter nonsense! One just has to have a quick look into the Bible to see that the Bible is full of lies and deceptions. How can one base moral behaviour on a book that is filled with lies and deceptions? Answer - You can't! A list of lies in the Bible - Noah was 950 years old. lol Please! Don't feed MY children this nonsense! The flood lasted for 40 days? Hmmmmmmm ????? Sounds like they were working off the old Egyptian Nile flood calender! lol Yes folks - The Bible is really all about Egyptian flood cycles! If fact, all the Bible characters are really Egyptian Pharaohs in disguise. No wonder the Arabic people hate Christians so much? Jehad to all Christian liars! Jesus was the son of God? Really? Naaaa!! He was really the son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra. His name was Caesarian. After his father was murdered he was forced into exile in India where he picked up some nonsense pacifist philosophy which later became Christianity. 2. My opponent proposes that bulldozing down all the churches would be too costly and unprofitable. More irrational religious nonsense. Most church properties would be worth millions of dollars in real estate value alone. Now, if you put in a high rise block of units that would could make billions of dollars for each church demolished. Note - Most churches are made of stone so nobody could burn them down. Burning down churches was a popular past time when they used to be made of wood. lol 3. The ancient Romans had a good use for Christians. (a) They could become good entertainment for the masses in an arena. lol (b) They could become slaves. Thus, we wouldn't have to fill up our prisons with such useless human beings. 4. My opponent has found very few inventors and innovators in the Muslim world. All he could muster was a couple of pathetic individuals. One of which painted feathers onto his arms and tried to fly. 'Abbas ibn Firnas, who made the first attempt of human flight in the 9th century, using adjustable wings covered with feathers'. Pathetic! Where are the Einstein's, Thomas Edison's, Alexander Graham Bell's, Leonardo da Vinci's, Nikola Tesla's, Isaac Newton's, Logie Baird's and the James Watt's????????????? None to be seen! Why? Answer - Because religious intolerance has dominated their lives and suppressed any freedom of thought and mind. That's why! 5. All religion is really pagan sun worship. The video will explain. http://www.youtube.com...
Creationism is true

Quantum fluctuations occur in the already created universe not before it. "KING LEAR: ..what can you say to drawA third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.KING LEAR: Nothing?!CORDELIA: Nothing.KING LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing, speak again.In order for the universe to exist it requires a cause that exists outside of space and time. Given the extreme fine tuning of the universe as well as objective morailty, The best explanation for this timeless spaceless cause is God.