BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A severely Totalitarian leader/parent is a better person than a severely Libertarian one.

I was traveling so i missed the previous round. What is the best to teach people= screaming and scaring people onto doing things or help them understand what is good and bad so they act accordingly? Totalitarian leader/parent is a better person than a severely Libertarian one? Not at all. Why because he does not inspire people, he scares people. People do not follow him, they simply comply for fear of punishment, therefore at the first opportunity they have they will rebel and do things in hidding..... whereas a Libertarian leader/parent will inspire, teach, counsel you. You then are conscious of right and wrong. He does not need to follow you because you know what to do already. A Totalitarian parent will close the door so the bird does not fly out. Soon as the bird gets an opportunity to evade it runs away. A libertarian leader will leave the door open, the bird will fly out but still come back.
A severely Totalitarian leader/parent is a better person than a severely Libertarian one.

Con has a total and utter misunderstanding of what Libertarianism is and stands for. The Libertarian leader lets their underlings do as they please and if what they do harms them, the Libertarian happily would let them suffer the consequences because apathy is the epitome of Libertarianism. The Totalitarian leader keeps their underlings form doing wrong whether or not they like it.
A severely Totalitarian leader/parent is a better person than a severely Libertarian one.

My friend you wrote: ' The totalitarian would never let their child do drugs, let alone die of overdosing. their children have good grades, do well in life and will raise good children themselves ' Totalitarian like libertarian would not allow their children do drugs unless they do drugs themselves. A child is a part of you. Parents' love is high to allow own children do wrong and the parent stay neutral. Nobody wants to let his child die and care not. So in this sense Libertarian like Totalitarian parents would not allow their child to do drugs or die of overdose. You made no point my friend. Libertarian parents would want to be proud of their children so will encourage them do well in school. The difference is the Totalitarian parent would scream at and terrorize, whereas the Libertarian parent would encourage and inspire. You win more flies with a drop of honey than with vinegar. That's the analogy between libertarian parent (using honey), than Totalitarian (using vinegar).
A severely Totalitarian leader/parent is a better person than a severely Libertarian one.

I have changed from a Libertarian to a Socialist overnight so that's why my profile altered.I will now display the truth:When the Totalitarian sees his/her children doing wrong, they correct it by any means necessary making their offspring and/or underlings better people and/or citizens.The absentee, or should I say Libertarian, sees his/her children doing wrong they laugh and ignore it because hey 'freedom is more important than the law' right? WRONG!The totalitarian would never let their child do drugs, let alone die of overdosing. their children have good grades, do well in life and will raise good children themselves. This is not about abuse as much as discipline. This is about caring no matter what that your child does right even if they hate you for it at first, they will realize later that you only wanted what's best for them.
A severely Totalitarian leader/parent is a better person than a severely Libertarian one.

I'm actually not playing devil's advocate here. I genuinely believe this to be true despite politically leaning to Libertarianism. I believe that Libertarianism needs the perfect amount otherwise it fails whereas I see Totalitarian leaders, even Kim Jong-Un, as genuinely caring people.My parents, when raising me, were on the stricter side so to say but I wouldn't call them extremely Totalitarian at all. Nonetheless, if I were given the option, I'd pick a parent that sets me straight when I or others do wrong or go astray than one who is so "kind" that they don't care whatever I do.
Boko Haram

Since my opponent has not made his opening argument, I will start with mine (keep in mind that I only have 500 characters):Opening Argument:U.S. intervention in Nigeria to stop Boko Haram is a waste of time and effort. We have already tried to root out other terrorist movements in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and all that has done it make their numbers grow. Why are these movements growing? Because by killing off individuals in their organization, you are creating new martyrs for their movement.
Women are treated better than men in the US

Introduction My opponent has forfeited without even posting a single argument. I am very disappointed. Unfortunately, I have already written my arguments in advance, so I would like to post them anyway. Arguments My opponent's stance is that women are treated better than men in society. I disagree and intend on proving it in this debate. 1. Women are paid $.77 to every $1 a man makes for the same job. My opponent cannot deny that this is wrong. Women generally work more than men. This will be covered in point 3. 2. There are schools that segregate males from females from males. This is sexist. Why can we not treat women as if they are equal? They are equal, so why are they treated lesser? 3. "At the same time that women produce 75 to 90 percent of food crops in the world, they are responsible for the running of households. According to the United Nations, in no country in the world do men come anywhere close to women in the amount of time spent in housework. Furthermore, despite the efforts of feminist movements, women in the core [wealthiest, Western countries] still suffer disproportionately, leading to what sociologist refer to as the “feminization of poverty,” where two out of every three poor adults are women. The informal slogan of the Decade of Women became “Women do two-thirds of the world’s work, receive 10 percent of the world’s income and own 1 percent of the means of production.”" 4. Women are treated as if the are weaker and are made to go before men. This is a fact and it is wrong. 5. Until rather recently, women were not allowed to serve in the military. This is also very wrong. 6. To the religious communities, women should not have the same rights as men, for "they were only created so they could bear children". This is wrong. We all know women are much more capable than simply bearing children. ConclusionIn conclusion, I have listed many ways that women are not treated better than men in society. Again, I am very disappointed at my opponent's forfeiture, but there is nothing I can do about it now. I hope he posts an argument in the next round. If not, then there is a clear winner to this debate. Works Cited "The Top 10 Facts About the Wage Gap." Name. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2014. <http://www.americanprogress.org...;. "Women's Rights." Name. Anup Stich., 14 March 2014. Web. 04 May 2014. <http://www.globalissues.org...;.
That doping should be permitted in all sports

In light of recent events in all sports, I believe that there is an easy solution. Allow doping.DefinitionsDoping = Use of (currently) banned performance-inhanced drugs in sportsSports = Can mean 'an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.'- but for this debate sports shall be taken to mean athleticsAthletics = The sport of competing in track and field events, including running races and various competitions in jumping and throwing.RULES1.) No Wikipedia2.) No trolling3.) No kritks/semantics4.)Begin in 1st round.5.)FF is concession unless same numberThanks!
Pachirisu should be classified as a legendary Pokemon

http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... Okay, so to establish the credibility of my interview, I have gathered all the Pachirisus I can find in my neighborhood and asked them essentially the same questions, to which they responded the same answers as the previous interview with a Pachirisu. Furthermore, I was lucky enough to find SeventhProfessor the Pachirisu himself! An he has admitted that his argument is not credible and that he concedes.
Pachirisu should be classified as a legendary Pokemon

1. You think just one Pachirisu's opinion is more important than mine? What if I were to tell you... I am a Pachirisu? Just because this disgusting little TRAITOR goes around promoting his filthy little ideas indoctrinated into him by society does NOT mean the rest of us believe in them. I, and the majority of Pachirisus, believe we are of legendary status. Your interviewed Pachirisu means nothing, and simply shows your bias on the topic. Honestly, this is like randomly choosing a gay guy against same sex marriage! 2. Nah, it's all in the mind. Again, society has indoctrinated us to believe the sexual movements are necessary, but they simply do nothing. Impregnating through thoughts, sound familiar? If not, here's a little picture of the most powerful existing Pachirisu, which few would argue shouldn't be a legendary: http://upload.wikimedia.org... QED
Pachirisu should be classified as a legendary Pokemon

http://www.youtube.com...Okay, so I was fortunate enough to have an interview with a Pachirisu and I got it on tape.In the interview, it has been established that:1. The Pachirisu itmself does not think it should be classified as legendary nor does it want to. Pachirisu's voice on this matter is certainly more reliable than Pro's.2. Pachirisu do in fact have sexual reproduction.
Pachirisu should be classified as a legendary Pokemon

Let's get a definition for what makes a "legendary". "Legendaries are also exceptionally powerful, unable to reproduce through breeding, and not part of an evolutionary chain." Exceptionally powerful- While not particularly strong in the brawny sense, Pachirisu can run very fast to quickly tire out enemies, normally using specific paths to its advantage. This shows exceptional power mentally and in speed. No reproduction- While it may seem like Pachirisu is breeding, that's not true. Pachirisu obviously sends mental commands that make a Pachirisu grow, while not performing any form of sexual reproduction. No evolution- Pretty straightforward, Pachirisu doesn't evolve.
drake is better than toga

To start off I would like to tell you I am in favor of Tyga not "Toga" I think going into a debate you should know what your saying. Although drake has been in the business longer Tyga has better future. Drake has more songs and probably more fans but trust me when you mess with Tyga you entering "Rack City" Tyga obviously has had some songs that made him famous in like an hour. You can tell that he has insane potential because he can really make it nasty!
drake is better than toga

I like how you start off saying how you spell your words right where in your argument you say "yo" Really the point of the debate was to see who was better and not about grammar. I honestly don't get why I would play with Barbie because then I would be playing with a girl pretty much like you. You don't know how to prove your points so you should go take a hike bud. We worry about the future and believe it or not Drake will not be around forever. And what singing teacher are you talking about? That was sort of random and honestly it was stupid. So I proved my point and you proved.... nothing.
drake is better than toga

First of all i spell words right, and bring the grammar to your house. Everything I said was true. Tyga, he sings like a girl. "you are probably gonna debate that one because you also sing the same. Yo get in the game. I know you just wanna try and be the best, but you can't stop me or drake. Go play barbie with your friend Tyga. Hey While your at get him and your self so better a singing teacher. YOLO!!!!!!
drake is better than toga

You can say all of my stuff is true but none of your facts are true. It is sort of weird how you bring up how their voice sounds. I would like you to define what a good rapping voice is. I mean with what you wrote not knowing it was about drake i would think you would be talking about one direction or Justin Bieber. Like honestly if you want to talk about rap kind of voice then go listen to Darth Vader rap. I suggest that when you into a debate that you have some supporting facts rather then you opinion on his voice.
Parents should be able to sexually molest their Children with mutual consent

Let us focus on the morality of the subject, since that is the main part of the argument. If consent is given by the child, it is still not moral due to the fact that morality is REAL, and that there are certain things that are just plain wrong. I don't think any rational human being would disagree that molestation of children is wrong, whether they give consent or not. Therefore, no I don't think you should be allowed to molest your own children on the basis that they can give consent. Consent or not, it is still immoral.
Parents should be able to sexually molest their Children with mutual consent

Morality is subjective. For my adversary to make a claim about something being immoral he must first find an objective way to gauge that. Killing could be immoral, eating animals could be immoral, so could molestation. The issue is that it depends on the situation. This is where the Child is giving consent to the parent to physically and literally fondle them until they are happy. With consent being given, this cannot be immoral. Granted any action is neither moral or immoral, as morality is a complete perception of our minds and absent from the world as we know it. If parents want to fondle their kids, and the kids enjoy it as sexual stimulation they should have the right He also notes that molesting them is wrong because they cannot offer consent. HE just notes this without showing why they can't offer consent. They can literally say " I give consent" thus the consent is confirmed. This is noted in the resolution. My adversary would have to show why children giving consent differs from adults giving consent, and how it impacts this debate. Note : He has dropped all my prior points. Including sexual experience. He has dropped my argument from awarness He has dropped entitlement. Thus I affirm the resolution.
Parents should be able to sexually molest their Children with mutual consent

firstroundaceept "1. Promotes sexual awareness Children are currently brought up in a sexually adverse culture, especially in more conservative American and Eastern European societies. Thus talk of sex within families is rather awkward. Allowing parents to molest their kids promotes increased awareness of the topic, and would consequently promote increased awareness of safe sex practices, such as the use of contraception, etc. 2. Provides valuable sexual experience Due to age of consent laws, millions of children enter adulthood with little or no sexual experience, which is one of the major sources of satisfaction and well-being. By allowing for molestation within a household context we promote increased sexual experience in a sterile and safe environment (within their own homes/families), thus negative the risk of having sex with strangers. 3. Entitlement The Child's parents brought them into existance, thus have a level of entitlement over the child's autonomy (e.G. Making their children do chores etc.), thus sex is just another chore that parents are entitled to expect their child to maintain. I am sure there are a plethora of other reasons, thus we should agree with the motion if we are intellectually honest. " [1 all of round' source - http://www.debate.org... Disclaimer : This is sourced
A duplicate of you is not you.

May I be proved wrong, or, may teleportation never be a possible, viable technology to be used in the future (ie: may it not be invented). Firstly, I'd like to delineate the parameters of this thought experiment and philosophical conundrum for the purpose of clarifying my position. The premises are simple: A duplicate of you is not you. I am not arguing whether or not teleportation is possible or even feasible as a technology from an engineering or physics perspective, nor am I arguing whether I 'should' survive such a perfected technology were I to voluntarily use it to get somewhere quickly (presumably) without the hassle and wasted time. My argument is that there is no way in which you can possibly experience life as the duplicate after having been the original - therefore, that guy over there is not me. Case in point: If while I slept in my bed at home here on Earth, an alien being on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy made a perfect duplicate copy of me from scratch, I would still be asleep in bed on Earth, unaware a copy of me existed on the alien's planet in that other galaxy. Nothing would have changed in my life from my point of view. I would have no connection to that version of or likeness of me, nor would he be me - as I am here, on Earth, in my bed, asleep. If that same alien on the planet in the Andromeda galaxy used a transporter/teleporter, which scanned and mapped every particle that my body was composed of, then recorded and retrieved that information and at his end used it to construct a new version of me from different atoms without harming me in any way, I would still be asleep here on Earth and not be aware of any such activity having taken place. If that same alien on the planet in the Andromeda galaxy used a transporter/teleporter, which scanned and mapped every particle that my body was composed of, YET DESTROYED MY BODY in the instantaneous process of the reading and mapping of my atoms via disintegration, then at his end used the mapped information to construct a new version of me from different atoms, I would be dead and gone, and a duplicate copy of me would have taken my place. I would not have actually been "transported" or "teleported" to that alien being's world. I, the original me, would be dead even if that alien used all the original atoms I was composed of to reconstruct me. Thus it is my belief that if a transporter like that portrayed in Star Trek, or any other Sci-Fi show you can think of, were to be invented, it would essentially kill the original versions of every person that stepped into it, replacing them with identical copies. Would it matter? Well, that's my point. I believe it would matter as you would not be around to enjoy the experience of having travelled from A to B instantly. Teleporters and transporters as imagined in science fiction are killing machines. If they are invented, destroy them.
Space Exploration is a good use of taxpayer's money

Full Resolution Is Space Exploration either a good, or bad use of taxpayer's money Definitions Terms, if need be, shall be defined in a reasonable manner by use of the Oxford English Dictionary, using the most common definitions that apply to the given context. Structure Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Constructive cases Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Counter-Rebuttals and Summation Time for each argument - 48 hours Argument character limit - 8,000 Voting Period - 7 days Voting Style - Open, 7-point system Rules 1. The definitions and structure detailed above must be accepted. 2. The Burden of Proof shall be shared and equal between both sides. 3. No trolling, swearing or personal attacks. 4. Sources must be cited at the end of the round. Do not use the comments section for that. Any violation of one or more of these rules shall merit a conduct penalty, or, in the worst case, a full forfeiture of the debate.
Riddle Battle

The awnser to mine is a virus. The awnser to yours is an egg. (that riddle was in the movie the hobbit) tip:make up a riddle i don't google riddle awnsers but i might know the riddle already. I have decided that my rule of loss by being incorrect should be revoked because i want to continue this riddle battle. (rule stated in beginning) And my next riddle is: Always moving never stopping Slows you down when you are dropping You feel it yet never see it Never cut or slit A human body Yet it can hurt everybody It can bite, carry, and throw anyone Being with it in its fits can be fatal It can seriously mess with rates of natal It is like jekell and hyde We love it be it can also tear our hide It is an essence of life Yet if we aren't carefull it is far more deadly than a knife
Riddle Battle

As fast as the wind or slower than molasses Yet it does its job well It surely does fell Another day goes, another day passes This nightmare will really make you take off your glasses It doesn't see or smell It surely does fell Some people are ignorant And some people just rant Handle it? Most people can't It is a horror from hell It surely does fell You can't outrun You can't out-gun This terrible thret makes people want to run If they catch you might as well jump in a well Because it surely... does..... fell.
Riddle Battle

How this works is you post a riddle and awnser the other person's from their previous round. You are only allowed one riddle per round. Riddles must be original. If there is a failure to post your riddle it is a loss and failure to awnser the opponent's riddle correctly it is also a loss. You get three guesses to awnser riddle (maximum) the first round is acceptence. Second to fourth is riddles and awnsers. Final round is all your awnsers collected. And any new awnsers from round four (total of awnsers for round four must equal 3. Alll awnsers and riddles must be labeled. Those are the rules read them before you accept and have fun.
Leaving certs have a difficult future ahead of them due to the current economic situation

In this round of the debate I would like to point out what my opponent stated in the last round. "I simply meant that this exam year year is going to have a difficult future ahead of them in terms of finding employment after college etc. because of the worldwide recession." Now as it would seem my opponent either failed to understand the position she has taken in this debate, or is admitting to the fact that "leaving Certs" will in fact face a more difficult future because of the current economic situation. I would like to point out that if my opponent seeks to find out the opinion's of others on the topic of "Leaving Certs" she is better off simply posting in the forums of DDO (http://www.debate.org...). Thank You.
Leaving certs have a difficult future ahead of them due to the current economic situation

Sorry I`m afraid you misunderstood me when I said "Leaving Certs" I meant the final exam year in Ireland. I simply meant that this exam year year is going to have a difficult future ahead of them in terms of finding employment after college etc. because of the worldwide recession. I just wanted to see what people`s opinions were on the topic! Sorry for not being more clear on the topic
Leaving certs have a difficult future ahead of them due to the current economic situation

Definitions: Certs is a breath mint (and or) candy mint manufactured by the Cadbury-Adams Division of the Cadbury-Schweppes Corporation. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://upload.wikimedia.org...) Arguments ------------------------- To understand why Certs leaving (the factory which produces them I assume) have a difficult future ahead of them we must first understand the life of a Cert and what their goal in life is. A Cert is created for the sole purpose of being swallowed and then digested by humans, however because of the current struggles that families and individuals face due to the recent recession many have been forced to cut back on spending by only buying the items essential to life and thus retail sales have plummeted [1], seeing as most would consider sweets such as Certs to be nonessential it will almost inevitably result in fewer Certs being sold and eaten. Many will not be able to accomplish their only future goal of being eaten, meaning they will most certainly face a difficult future after leaving the factory. Thank you. [1] http://www.forbes.com...