BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall

I'll start right off with refuting my opponent's points. When my opponent says that nowhere does it prove that the random Mongolians in the South Park episode were citizens, it never states anywhere that the Mongolian's were not citizens either. We should, however, assume them as South Park residents since it is unlikely that they came all the way from Mongolia just to destroy Kim's wall. It is more likely that they were just outcasts living on the outskirts of South Park and came to destroy the Great Wall looking for fun. Rebuttal- C1 As I have already proved that the Mongolians should be counted as citizens of South Park in my introduction, my opponent's first contention becomes nearly pointless. Nevertheless, I will continue to break it down further. Just because you disobey the Social Contract does not make you part of nature, and therefore a "beast". If this were to be true, nearly everyone of the human population would be roaming around in the woods as beasts. This is why we have laws, and punishments if we break those set laws or rules, as in the Social Contract. That is why no human being are equivalent to animals. In many cases if an animal like a dog causes destruction, they hold the humans responsible for the dog accountable for whatever damage the dog has caused. Rebuttal- C2 While it may be true that Kim does not have the ability to personally sue the Mongolians for the damage they caused to the Great Wall, he could team up with the city of South Park to collectively sue the Mongolians. It is quite easy to determine that the Mongolians have broken a lot of laws by breaking the wall. Now that we have determined it is the city's wall, they would get even greater punishment for causing damage to city property. And it is good that my opponent brought up the 9/11 reference. I'm sure everyone knows how badly the 9/11 suspects were prosecuted for the crimes and damages they caused, in Guantanamo Bay or in courts. The same thing would happen to the Mongolians, except on a smaller scale, because essentially, the Mongolians did the same thing the terrorists on 9/11 did, except on a smaller scale. From the above rebuttals, it is easy to determine that the Mongolians did,in fact, break the law by destroying Kim's wall.
The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall

First off, nowhere does it say that the random Mongolians living in the Rocky Mountains were citizens of South Park or even America. I say that the Mongolians' actions were MORALLY wrong, but still legal in the sense of American law and its legal citizens. CONTENTION 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the Mongolians were not American citizens they are basically non-existent to the legal system. You could say they are basically a part of nature since they choose to disobey the Social Contract and thus betray society itself by deciding to enter the Wild and live in the State of Nature. . Thus they become savage beasts and unaccountable for by the law. Basically they can be called animals. If a deer runs in front of your car when you are going 60 mph and totals it, but survives, can you have the deer sued or jailed? CONTENTION 2--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuong Lu Kim was working for the City of South Park when he built the wall, which he did completely against his will, so he PERSONALLY could not sue for all his hard work being thwarted. The citizens of South Park only payed for the wall to protect themselves from child abductors. So the fact that the Mongolians destroyed property is true,, but Tuong has no legal ability to sue the Mongolians for obliterating his -- scratch that, THE CITY'S -- wall. Yet another example: Can the hard working men who built the World Trade Centers from 1966 to 1971 sue Al Queda for wasting their hard work? I still stand in firm confidence that "The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall. "
The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall

Thanks to my opponent for this debate, it looks like an interesting one. The basic point of this argument is that it was wrong for the Mongolians to break down the wall that Tuong Lu Kim built. I'm sure that is in the general consensus of most level-headed, just-minded people to know that you do not just go around damaging, invading, or destroying other people's things. That is why there is no trespassing and no vandalism rules/laws in most neighborhoods and communities. It is unjust for someone to go and damage someone else's hard work and effort. Obviously, South Park is very unrealistic, but that episode shows that Kim built a very long wall, which, as my opponent stated in round 1, is a remake of the Great Wall. Seeing as one man did ALL of that hard work, it would hurt him a lot for a crowd of Mongolians to continually destroy his hard work. Unfortunately, all the citizens in South Park are stupid, so they probably wouldn't sue each other. But if Kim were to sue the group of Mongolians in that one South Park episode, he'd have an easy case to win. He could sue for damage of property, trespassing, and vandalism. The Mongolians, having no defense except for that they wanted to have some fun, would have to be forced to pay and fix Kim's Great Wall. The Mongolian's side of this argument is easily thwarted, and I stand in negation of the resolution that my opponent has made, "The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall."
The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall

All this is about is that I just realized recently that i have only been in three debates on this site and I don't feel like researching arguments for a real debate. In South Park Episode 611, the citizens of South Park, in a desperate attempt to save their children from abductors, ask Tuong Lu Kim (the owner of the City Wok) to build a large "city wall", essentially a remake of the Great Wall of China. Every time Tuong repairs the wall, the Mongolians return time and again to destroy the wall, just to leave after reverting a portion to rubble. The point of this debate is for the pro to prove that the Mongolians were lawful in destroying the wall. The con must prove that the Mongolians broke some sort serious law in doing their act. One of the many Mongolian scenes: . http://www.southparkstudios.com... The full episode: . http://www.southparkstudios.com... this debate has no standard setup of rules seeing as the topic itself cannot be researched very deeply. Anything, anything at all not mentioned in the episode itself can be imposed by a debater as truth. For example i could say Tuong had been disrespectful to the Mongolians and therefor they had a morall allowance to retaliate. But, this debate is about LEGAL standings, not morality. I will leave Round 1 open for my opponent to begin or once he/she accepts they may postpone putting their arguments until the second round as well.
The Mongolians from South Park were legally allowed to break down the City Wall

My opponent missed the second rebuttal that I made against his first contention. If we do in fact concede that the Mongolians are citizens (I missed that sentence. .-__-) , I have already made another rebuttal against my opponent's first contention in R2 which he has not responded to. Therefore, his first contention does not stand. For my rebuttal against my opponent's second contention, perhaps he has misunderstood me. If you read my rebuttal, I never made any mention of "suing" a terrorist, rather, I only proposed the idea of PROSECUTING the Mongolians like the terrorists from 9/11. And my opponent is seriously mistaken when he states, "Moving past that, with the statement of fact that I have imposed onto this debate that the Mongolians were, in fact, not citizens of the United States, it is near impossible to prosecute them of any serious crime. ", how else did the US prosecute the terrorists from 9/11? We are not blind, it is MORE than obvious that those suspected of 9/11 and those convicted of it were DEFINITELY prosecuted and punished accordingly. And we all have a general consensus of what is or is not moral, and I'm sure that breaking down rules is a big no-no.
Consoles are Better than PC's for the purpose of gaming

Addressing the point of the AAA games: While the games perhaps would not have been made without the console, I see that as somewhat of a starting point for the evolution of gaming. Better performance as well as game variation is found with the PC, a more evolved gaming hardware. While the market of today may still be in consoles, it very well may be the future of gaming to play on PC, as there are many advantages with controls, such as the keyboard, which can allow the user many more features in gameplay. I still think the largest point in advantage in PCs would be the ability to upgrade, which consoles lack severely. Though consoles still are the devices of the masses, there are some disadvantages in that. One, would be the player community, especially with the AAA games, like the Call of Duty series. If you have played them before, you would know exactly what I am talking about. If not, then allow me to explain. It's a mess of pre-pubescent children screaming obscenities without parental supervision and teabagging galore. On the PC community of AAA games, I have noticed no such thing, as many of the people who have built PCs with the capability to play such games are usually older and more mature, with a lower tendency to do such immature things, and tend to be, on average, much more respectful.
Consoles are Better than PC's for the purpose of gaming

The PS4 can run BF4 at 50fps 900p at very high graphics. I have a rig myself (GTX 780, i7) but the PS4 is an overall better deal. Consoles are more accessible to the public, and that means more budget. Most AAA games would have not been made if the PS3/360 weren't launched, as much as NVIDA hypes high end PC gaming; it's still a niche. Devs will always cater to the bigger profit oriented market and it's still consoles.
Consoles are Better than PC's for the purpose of gaming

You do bring up the good point that quality is directly related to price paid, but with PC parts at that all time low, you are incorrect in saying that the end product (with the same amount of money spent for each gaming hardware) would have roughly the same performance. The listing price for a Xbox 1 is currently a few cents under $560, and can average 20 FPS at a resolution of 1600x900 resolution. I do not know if you had ever built a PC, but I can sure run games, even large ones like BF4, at full settings at 50 FPS on a computer I made for $600, and the full settings on PC are much, much higher than those provided by any console on the market. Source: http://www.ign.com... As to your point of the game variation, most games are made for consoles, but say if consoles were to go away all together; would the games cease to be made? I do not think that they would, not by far, they would continue to make games, but just shift the platform. These games are made exclusively for consoles due to contracts made with the console developers, so that they cannot make it for other consoles, as to keep it exclusive in many cases, which can create a desire for the certain consoles. (e.g. The Last Of Us) However, many of these games get ported over to the PC, as you said, but the PC's just can run them better. I look forward to reading your response.
Consoles are Better than PC's for the purpose of gaming

While I agree with most of what you said, consoles sell well and they drive developers to make better games because of the profit. While many of of the games on steam are mere console ports and boring (imo) indie games, there are some beautiful games such as Crysis 3 and BF4 which look simply stunning if you have a good PC, but that's the thing "if you have a good pc". While the price of pc parts is at an all time low it is still a better deal to get a next gen console (specially the PS4) because of the price and end result (graphics, fps) is almost the same. Wether you like it or not, AAA developers will cater to their piggy bank and their piggy bank is consoles.
Consoles are Better than PC's for the purpose of gaming

I personally believe that PC gaming is still a better option for those who can afford it rather than gaming on next generation consoles such as the Xbox 1 or the PlayStation 4. I would not like to include the Steam box in this debate as it is somewhat of a hybrid. I believe this because PC's are able to be upgraded or have parts exchanged and replaced while traditional consoles, when broken, would have to be sent back to the manufacturer, taking on average 1-2 weeks to return in a working condition. That being said, the returned product would not always be new, but sometimes refurbished. Let me now discuss the difference in graphic quality and performance. I see PC's as once again superior in this department as consoles are fixed to the performance and graphic quality as the hardware that they are manufactured with, while PCs bring the advantage of being able to upgrade and continue to improve the hardware within. Such a thing is impossible with a console. I would also like to bring up the point that the game range for xbox 360 is approximately 952 at the time of this listing, while the PC has "Steam", a video game market, which encompasses about 3000+ different games, which is only a small fraction of all of the PC games out at this time. The number of PC games are innumerable, and the community of gamers is even larger, which makes for a more diverse playing experience. PC gaming also allows for more (and easier) customization of both in game play as well as the gaming hardware. In PC games, you are able to change around shaders and many different types of graphics quality, as well as the physical components of the hardware, like adding cool features like LED's or again, upgrading hardware. The same cannot be done for a console without voiding a warranty. Thank you and I hope to hearing your argument.
Should the United States ban the use of armed drones.

Ban- Officially or legally prohibitDrone- A pilotless aircraft operated by remote controlGood Evening to my opponent! Round One is for acceptance and clarification of said debate.Round 2 is specifically for construction of cases.Round 3 is for clash.Round 4 is for rebuttal and closing comments.Rules:No debater shall be disrespected in any way.No religion shall take part of this debate. Philosophies have almost nothing to do with this debate, and should remain outside of this debate.
It is probable that God exists

TERMSResolved: It is probable that God exists.Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clash For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, I am not referring to any specific deity. Hence doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are irrelvant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable. It is thus not enough to simply refute my arguments. My opponent must also erect his own case against the probability of God's existence.
Marriage should be abolished

Excuse me? YOUR A CHRISTIAN? Silence ends; 1 Corinthians 3:15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. THIS is waiting for YOU the second you DIE! I would be VERY concerned over the last part though;"even though only as one escaping through the flames."That a slave of Christ would denegrate the sancity of marriage is reprehensible!Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.Isaiah 5:21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!…Proverbs 30:6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.Isaiah 65:2 "I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts,Matthew 15:9 They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.'" Isaiah 55:8-9 New International Version (NIV) 8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,neither are your ways my ways,”declares the Lord. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,so are my ways higher than your waysand my thoughts than your thoughts. Jeremiah 23:1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord. Jeremiah 10:21For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the Lord: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered. Zechariah 11:15-17And the Lord said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. 16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces. 17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened. Ezekiel 13:3 Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! You do wrong to suggest such a thing. Repent and return to your studies. You ARE Forgiven, and heaven secure in Christ our Lord. I would however caution you on future remarks of this kind! God forbid! I ask that you not respond further, let this hideous basphamous subject die as is! I forgive you your acions as I'm sure God will as He is faithful to forgive US our transgressions. I will request FRIEND, that you may message me as you wish ... but I will speak on this matter No further. If you respond I shall not respond so either way this TOPIC IS DEAD! Message me and we will talk or not as you wish.
Marriage should be abolished

"What utter nonsense! The entire statement is want of any truth at all. marriage was certainly NOT based on reproduction but upon companionship" since We are both Christians, we both believe in Jesus's words, didn't he say that he created marriage for Reproduction? he never said it had anything to do with companionship, i even have proof: https://www.desiringgod.org... now, my opponent has said that all teens cause abortions when that is indeed not true, i have lost count of how many teen mothers their are, in fact, their are 3 out of 10 girls become pregnant, that is a lot of Mothers and fathers rasing kids without marriage is it not? Heres my proof for this statement: https://www.dosomething.org... you have broken conduct far more times than i can count, first off, calling a statement "utter nonsense" is poor conduct, and accusing me of impregnating women and leaving them isn't really helping it either You cannot deny the fact that weather or not the reason for marriage, weather for lust or love, it is still marriage, there is nothing otherwise.
Marriage should be abolished

What utter nonsense! The entire statement is want of any truth at all. marriage was certainly NOT based on reproduction but upon companionship. As you have already mentioned the Irresponsibility of Teens, who are little more than whores, murdering babies en mass because of the equally irresponsibility of boys, who cannot provide financial assistance or simply cannot be bothered with raising a baby. The design SIMPLE. No marriage NO SEX,No Sex, No Abortions, No abortions, No unwanted children, No unwanted children, , No Orphans, No orphans No DEADBEAT DADS, No deadbeat dads, No Single Mothers, No single Mothers, No Children Running the Streets, No children running the streets, No vandalism, No vandalism, No Youth Criminal Records, No youth criminal records, No need for Juvenile detentions centers ... and on it goes! You are to RAISE what you produce, or Man is an alien term to you! As to divorce rates ... it is totally based on the immaturity of Both genders whom see marriage as something "not sacred". The mistaken LUST for LOVE, women once aware that your nothing but a skirt chaser, and useless as a Husband, simply realize it is better to do without you, letting you become someone else"s problem? Course your irresponsibility continues in the form of deadbeat dad syndrome. Failing to provide financially for YOUR perverse thoughts. Even Now, one need only come to the realization that your statement clearly indicates that you are more than happy to sleep around burdening every Woman who will sleep with you with a Child you have NO intention of Financially supporting, leaving the CITIZENS of this country to carry the BURDEN of your hypocrisy! Laws need to be passed where these children can be forced under LAW to PROVIDE FINIANCIAL SUPPORT, in work camps, under the employ of the Federal Government who then Forwards the Financial assistance to the Poor Women saddled by your stupidity! Fathers of today should be HELD accountable to provide financially to any girl who bears their grandchild. You would think they would WANT TO! But? It would appear there are more of YOU, than me! Course, the world of humanity is 90 % going to Hell, as they pass on, so I guess, they feel the eternal punishment is WORTH the measly 70 years of selfishness. What is astounding is that those 90% never bother to actually LOOK to determine the TRUTH of Hell? That makes as much sense as everything You have stated. Thus my vimeo report on the Stupidity of Humanity! Difficult for the intelligent to feel remorse for the self inflicted punishment you have brought upon yourself. But you are what you are .... useless, to women and Society at large!
Marriage should be abolished

I am sorry to anyone who is in a happy couple but nowadays it seems to be rare. Marridge (no matter how many people in it) was made to make sure that you reproduce, and yet it is proven, time and time again, that teen's reproduce without marridge, furthermore, it seems that women (not all of them tho!) are talking advantage of the system, by marrying rich men or women, dumping them, and taking their house, children, or money, not only that, the structure of it is falling apart, currently in the US, the divorce rate is over 50% Here's the source: http://www.apa.org... i await whoever wishes to accept and wishes them luck.
IB IVF Debate

The reality of IVF is that it gives hopes to infertile couples that have believed there to be no chance of them having their own children, and gives them a chance to fulfill a dream. The general procedures begins with basic screenings given to both partners of IVF " which helps predict how well the ovaries will respond to the drugs. Consents have to be signed by all people and then there"s six basic steps: the monitoring and stimulation for the development of healthy eggs in the ovaries, collection of eggs, securing of sperm, then combining the eggs and sperm together in the laboratory, creating the appropriate environment for fertilization and early embryo growth, and the transfer of embryos in the uterus is last. ("In Vitro Fertilization") In all, IVF allows for a family to be completed, people to be happy, and for a possibility of lives being saved.