BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Television is harmful

I thank anyone who accepts this. Let's start! 1. Definitions No need to define the words. We know what they mean. 2. The physical harms of TV An average person watches 26- 28 hours of television a week! This means that they watch an average of 4 hours a day! This causes addiction to television. This also causes people to be near-sighted, far-sighted, and more. http://www.themoorings.org... www.brainsturbator.com/.../more_dirt_on_the_demon_box_tv_science/ Okay. For round 1, just start short and easy. Good luck!
Most Important Battles Challenge (7)

Pro Battle of Waterloo Year: 1815 Armies: France (Napoleon Bonaparte) vs. Britain, Prussia, and their Allies (Duke of Wellington and Gebhard von Blucher) The Battle In 1815, Napoleon Bonaparte returned to power in France. He had been the emperor before, but was forced into exile during his failed conquest of Europe. Now back, the powers that had defeated him returned. Britain, Prussia, Austria, and Russia were all against him. Britishm Belgian, and Dutch troops commanded by the Duke of Wellington landed in Belgium and were suppose to meet a Prussia force commanded by Gebhard von Blucher. Napoleon decided to attack and take each army one at a time. At the battle, the British, Belgian, and Dutch occupied a ridge which stopped several frontal assaults that Napoleon launched. Soon Prussian troops from Blucher were on the field and Napoleon was being forced to split his army. French reinforcements under Marshal Emmanuel de Groucy did not arrive. After a failed attack by his elite Old Guard on the British and Dutch line, he withdrew and was eventually forced into exile again. Importance Napoleon would have likely been unstoppable. He had nearly conquered Europe before and he could have possible conquered all of it if he was given a second try. This is mainly because of the spreading apart of his allies. Wellington would have been forced back to the Belgian coast to evacuate with the British. The Dutch, Belgians, and Prussians would be left to fend for themselves. The Prussians would be in a very bad position because they would be stuck between Napoleon and his reinforcements. The Dutch and the Belgians could in no way stand up to Napoleon. As for Napoleon's two other enemies, Austria and Russia, they would be stuck in the same position they were in 1805. The Austrians would have to either advance into France or wait for the Russians. The latter was a bad choice in 1805 as it led to defeat and loss of 45,000 Austrian troops at the Battle of Ulm while the former means than an outnumbered Austria would be taking on the power of Napoleon. The emperor would shift his army south along with reinforcements to Italy. When Napoleon would defeat the Austrians and Prussians he would likely have greater France. This means Belgium and northern Italy. If he wished to continue his conquests as in 1805 to 1812, he could move into Europe, force Prussia and Austria into alliances while putting back in the Duchy of Warsaw and other satelittes. This time he would either learn from, or not make the mistake of invading Russia, leading to a Britain-France stalemate at sea. Napoleon could then possibly rule until the end of his reign and then give it to his child or other relative to maintain the French empire. Spam battles!
Most Important Battles Challenge (7)

Rules: We will debate battles for different wars and time periods. What happens is that every round a battle will be placed by each debater. Whoever has the most will get the most points from the votes and thus win. Sieges are not included in this. Just land and naval battles. It is encouraged that a simple overview of the battle is given then each side states their personal reasons why it was important. The intentions for these debates is that they always be quick and simple. The voters then look at each round and will vote for who they think showed what battles were more important. No semantics or trolling! Round 1 is for acceptance! No refutations! The winner of the debate will simply be decided by the voters! Here is how the format looks: Round 1: Introduction/acceptance Round 2: Present debate Round 3: Present debate Round 4: Present debate Round 5: Present debate
There should be legal limit for age.

My Opponent is arguing for murder. He states that people should be "forced to die" if they get old, because they are too old. His justification for this obscure belief is to counter overpopulation. First of all, the UN projects that the population will stabilize at 9 billion[1], thus eliminating any need to murder people. Global birthrates have been declining[2], so it is very likely to not be a problem. Even if it is a problem, it is one that must be countered by keeping birthrates low, not murdering our oldest and wisest citizens. Vote con on this debate, and if for some reason you believe that my Opponents argument still holds any ground, I would like you to consider exterminating your loving, elderly grandparents because they got "too old".Sources:1. http://www.un.org...2. http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk...
Resolved: Lebran James is not the best player in the NBA

Alright, thank you for this debate. Good luck to you. My opponent essentially agrees with my attacks on his second and third points. He says that there are plenty of great leaders. He also says that there are plenty of other athletic players in the league. You simply cannot "calculate" the athleticism of a player. Sure, he is big and fast. So are half of the other great players in the league. On to his first point. He brings up these statistics. I have countered with my own, only to be told that no person can hold ALL of the records. Given the resolution, I feel that it WOULD be necessary to be THE BEST. However, I will show you even more statistics that a player could not hold and still be the best. LBJ is not the best scorer, Dwayne Wade leads the league with 29.5. LBJ can't shoot 3s worth crap. He is 105th in the league for three-pointers. He is also tenth in the league for assists. Given these numbers, one must see that Lebron James cannot be THE BEST player in the nba. For these reasons, I stand in absolute affirmation of the resolution. Resolved: Lebran James is not the best player in the NBA. Affirmed.
Resolved: Lebran James is not the best player in the NBA

1) Statistics Well what you first must realize, is that it is impossible to lead every category in statistics. After realizing this, you then have to see which player has the highest rank when you combine all the statistics together. Lebron James averages 28.5 (which rounds up to 29) with 7.4 rebounds per game and 7.0 assists. These, on average, are the best statistics in the nba. So, performance wise, he has the edge. 2) Speed, Size, and Power Yes, i agree, there are a lot of people in the nba with speed. However, what you must realize is that all of the other players with speed are 6'1, 6'2, 6'3, and 6'4. Lebron James is 6'8 260+ lbs!!!!! Anyone who runs with the same speed and mobility of someone 6'2 210 lbs, but is 6'8 260 lbs is going to have the edge (The world 100m & 200m dash champion for example). 3) Leadership Qualities Yes, Chris Anderson has leadership. And so does every leader on every high school and college team leader. But when you combine his leadership with his athleticism he is unmatched!
Resolved: Lebran James is not the best player in the NBA

Alright, well since the resolution says that LBJ is not THE BEST player, that would mean that he is not THE BEST in every area. This is true, therefore, I uphold the resolution. My opponent's first point was LBJ's statistics. It is true, that he has good stats. However, he is/has been beaten in multiple areas. For instance, Jason Kidd. He has LBJ beat in many categories. http://www.nba.com... Here is LBJ: http://www.nba.com... From these stats alone, we can clearly see that Lebron is not THE BEST player, even considering his stats. His second point was his size. To put it simply, there are many other players in the NBA with these stats as well. Sure he is fast, but so aren't a whole lot of other players? His final point was his leadership abilities given his age. Again, this is great. However, there are many other players with similar abilities. Look at Chris Anderson. For all these reasons, I can only uphold the resolution. Resolved: Lebran James is not the best player in the NBA Affirmed.
Resolved: Lebran James is not the best player in the NBA

I will ask my opponent one question what declares or defines being the best player? Is it stats? Is it size and athleticism? Or is it team leadership? And any one of these lebron james has the best. Con 1: Lebron James has the best stats. Lebron James has on average the best stats in the nba. Come on he went into Madison square garden and had a double double which should of been a triple double but they took one of his rebounds away. He avg 8 assist 8 rebounds and 29 points. It does not get any better then that. Con 2: He is the best combination of speed, size, and power. For this argument all I have to say is 6 feet 8 inches 265 lbs running a "4.5" 40 meter dash. Con 3: He demonstrates great leadership qualities. Lebron came into the NBA out of high school showing better leadership qualities than some of the people we call the greats. He has lead the cavs to the last two eastern conference championship games and once to the finals (mind you he was still suppose to be in college). So in conclusion he is the Best Player In The NBA.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

Again this is not an debate whether god is true or not. Like religious arguments, Atheists define god to whatever they want, and except to observe a physical phenomenon of god, whereas in most religions apart from the Abrahamic ones, God is un-observable by humans. Atheists showcase all the basic qualities of a religious evangelists. They attach god to religion, whereas the concept of a GOD is beyond religion. Gravity waves exist whether we found them or not, it exists whether there is a science or not. There is no doubt atheism is a an opposing religion.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

this is not a debate about which is true? or whether atheists or theists are wrong. Or which is the default stance . This is about whether Atheism is a religion. By repeating the same moot point over and again shows a religious attitude towards atheism. By ignoring the actual debate and forcing a singular point of view, the similarity of the religiously faithful and the atheist has been demonstrated here. Hence proved Atheism is a religion, which preaches there is no god.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

This debate is not about whether which one is right. This is about whether atheism is an opposing religion to theism. The modern understanding of Athiesm is just a ideological opposite of the Abrahamic view of religion, Monohiesm, standard belief system. Hence the arguments about a founder, prophet and holy books. This is the promary misunderstanding ansd obstacle debate. But most of the other word religions don't follow this religious construct. For example Hinduism doesn't have a founder or any strict set of codes to follow. Hindus can be atheists. Buddhism denies the existence of god. They are atheists. Here I have two examples of Atheism, which is called a religion. An individual or group of people denying the existence of an entity, without providing any proof of the so called non existence is still a belief system. Disproving specific constructs of a specific single religion, to claim GOD doesn't exist is not rational. Disproving GOD by claiming that bible says god created world in 7 days, is just disproving a old book , or its authors. IT doesn't disprove the existence of GOD. This is what atheists do and they end up "BELIEVING" an entity doesn't exist. A lack of evidence doesn't mean it does not exist. Claiming something because of the lack of evidence is a belief. Einstein disproved Newton's idea of time and space. HE did not disprove time and space. A disbelief in something is still belief. Atheism is the opposing religion, there are figure heads, leaders, members evangelize and convert. They have groups with ethical and moral code. They are a religion.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

"Are you a Christian?" "No, I am an Atheist." Atheism is just another belief system, that claims there is no GOD, or divinity. It opposes theist views. There are sects of Hinduism and Buddhism that has this same philosophy, but yet they fall under religion. A religion does not need to have "GOD". A person can deny the existence of God and still be religious. It can be argued that Atheists "lack belief" in God , hence it is not a belief system. It is as good as saying " I don't believe in human society and rules" Makes you not human. Most religions disbelief other religions, Atheism disbelief other religions. The lack of belief in god, doesn't automatically release you from a system of thoughts, beliefs, philosophy and lifestyle. Religion is a system of thoughts, beliefs, philosophy and lifestyle. The very purpose of having a lack of a belief itself a philosophical lifestyle. Any atheist who refute religious texts, make judgements about religious views, have actually made a religious statements that coincide with their views of the world and reality. If Atheism isn't a religion, why do atheists refute religious claims. Contemporary atheism has its leadership, books and organizations. The most fundamental fact is that the existence of god can neither be proven or dis-proven. Accepting the Idea of God or rejecting it takes faith. Faith is the cornerstone of religion.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

Atheism is again a belief system, that believes there is no God. They explicitly don't believe in Divinity. I am calling it a "Belief system" because atheist don't have a rational reason on why God doesnt exist. Atheism generally defines "God" in accordance with Abrahamic view of GOD, which is an organized institute of thought. By this definition Buddhists are Atheists. They don't believe in the existence of a GOD, Although they believe in divinity. Athiests actually only debate specific divine phenomena or events to refute existence of god. They consider holy books, and religious scriptures as authoritative information on GOD. But doesn't consider god as a phenomenon that exist outside the categorical statements in holy books. Atheist believe in the infallible proofs provided by science, and even if inexperienced in the scientific method they claim science as the definitive authority on the truth of all phenomena. As with theists, atheists believe the words of a more authorized individual or institute with no actual personal exploration of science. An atheist might state the big bang theory or the speed of light. But this wisdom or information is only gained through others individuals and related streams of thought, not any personal investigation. While the subject is different, this is exactly what a theist does. Just the information both these sects call out is different. So any belief in "the non existence of God", along with the lack of any proof to actually refute the existence of an entity based on the views of institutions, other individuals, and definitions of GOD makes them as much as a believer as any other religious devotee.
Death Battle: Choose your Fighter!

My opponent violated Rule #1, which states no anime is allowed, and no comic characters are allowed.Anyways, I did forget to say what stats we're using. They are Strength, Agility, Durability, Abilities, and Equipment. A commenter did say this is one sided, though. And, for this battle, Wesker won't reveal his identity to Light Yagami. Now, let's get into why Wesker destroys all.Argument:Strength:Wesker is strong enough to punch through a person's chest, able to lift large steel girders, and throws big missles.Agility:Wesker can dodge bullets at point blank range. Bullets go over 70 miles per hour from a simple handgun. Thus, Wesker must be able to move at least 75 mph, and have enough reaction timing to see the bullet fire. He can also run fast, covering 3 yeards in very little time. In fact, he moves so fast, the human brain can't process it, and he looks like he's teleporting.Durability:If Wesker does get hit by a bullet, no problem. He is immensely durable, both his skin, and his organs. A bullet would only penetrate a few inches. If you punched Wesker, like Chris Redfield did once, that would hurt you more than him."The virus he injected also had the added ability of superhuman endurance and near-invulnerability; hardening his skeleton, internal organs, tissue, and skin, to the point that attempting to punch him or engage in hand-to hand combat would most likely result in fractured limbs on the part of the attacker. This is demonstrated in RE5 when attempting to attack Wesker up close as Chris during context sensitive events. Punching him will result in Chris grimacing and shaking the punching hand to alleviate the pain." - Resident Evil wikiAbilities:Master Martial Artist: Even before injecting himself with the prototype virus, Wesker was skilled in all kinds of martial arts, making him skilled in hand to hand combat. Combine that with speed, strength, and impenetrable skin, you're dead.Wesker can also cling to walls. He doesn't have much else than that, though.Equipment:Wesker also wields a pistol, in case he wants to shoot his opponents.Conclusion:Wesker destroys all. No wonder he calls himself a god!Source: http://residentevil.wikia.com...;
Death Battle: Choose your Fighter!

I'm, once again, doing a Death Battle. We will be going over stats, but rules are present.Rules:1) This time, your character must have originated from a video game. No anime characters, no TV shows, no brands, no real life people, no comics.2) Your character must be defeatable. So no Superman or anything.3) Your character can't be fan fiction. They must have existed within a video game.4) Beware of superhuman feats. Running out of time is an instant loss. (48 hours to post)5) No trolling of any kind. If the voters see you're trolling in any way, that means an instant loss.5b) Trolling includes: "If someone made a battle between Mario and Wesker, Mario would win, since popularity", "My character is a ghost, and can't die" [violates rule 2 anyways], "My character is [insert inanimate object]", and anything else that is ridiculous. I will call you out.6) No concealing information until Round 4. Doing so is an automatic loss.7) Round 1 is acceptance only.My character is Albert Wesker from the Resident Evil series.
Summer Regular Tournament - Welfare should end in the U.S

My opponents arguments are all based on the assumption that welfare is the only way that allows these needs to be met. Basic necessities such as food, waterand shelter can all be achieved via a wage payedby employment. The goal should be to bring people who are reliant on welfare, back to work. However, this "safety net" seems to act like a spider web, where anyone who finds themselves unemployed and unable to meet financial needs, are trapped in a welfare program where it is too risky to leave. I have pointed this out in my initial arguments, where I compared welfare programs by stateto an equivalent wage provided by a job on a per hour basis. The more the program gives out, the less likely people will want to work. Not only does this lack of employment affect families on a personal level, but it also has adverse effects on economic growth. Small businesses find that they need to compete with welfare payments to attract workers, resulting in less overall employment, similar to what happens with the minimum wage. [1]Like I already mentioned, a more practical and effective approach would be to implement policies that encourage employment. Tax credits to low-income workers would prove to be much more effective, as it promotes employment, thus allowing workers to access those goods my opponent mentioned, while maintaining their productivity and leaving family providers with a sense of dignity - that they are actually able to work for their money rather than just receive it from government.Sources[1] http://www.cato.org...
Summer Regular Tournament - Welfare should end in the U.S

As Con, it is my BoP to negate the resolution by proving that Welfare should not end in the United States. What welfare is: "A government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc. (taken from Merriam-Webster) Welfare offers economic protection for those who do not have it, and it provides money for things such as food, water, housing, and medical costs. Money for these things fulfills the physiological level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is the 1st because without food, water, shelter, and medical care an individual cannot survive in life. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Welfare also fulfills the 2nd level of needs in the hierarchy, which is safety. Safety includes economic, personal, and medical security, and welfare provides this safety net for citizens currently in a state of insecurity and allows for citizens who are doing alright for something to fall back on in case things go wrong. If welfare is terminated in the United States, millions will have their safety net cut. According to the US Census Bureau, 52.2 million Americans are recipients of welfare (http://www.census.gov...), and 65% of American children are dependent on a type of welfare. (http://www.naturalnews.com...) If Welfare ends in the United States, then millions of people will lose their economic security to provide for their most basic needs such as food, water, shelter, and medical care, thus welfare should not end in the United States.
Summer Regular Tournament - Welfare should end in the U.S

I accept. Pro's BoP is to prove that Welfare should end in the U.S., as Con my BoP is to negate the resolution by proving that Welfare should not end in the U.S. Definitions: Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) End: (The) Cessation of a course of action, pursuit, or activity (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In the United States: https://www.cia.gov...
Summer Regular Tournament - Welfare should end in the U.S

Resolution is:Resolved: Welfare should end in the U.SI will be arguing for the resolution, my opponent will be arguing against it.Definition of Welfare: a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc. (taken from Merriam-Webster)BoP is sharedR1: AcceptanceR2: ArgumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: ConclusionRules:- No Kritiks or semantical arguments