BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
obama is incorrect in taxing the rich ($250,000 a year) and giving to the poor!

It is not right to tax someone living on the brink the same as someone making over 250k year. Conclusion Taxes are needed to pay for things like roads, schools, and many other things. My opponent has already shown a deep dislike of the united states simply printing money. { usually by borrowing money from China. } The only way we can pay for things like this without borrowing money is to raise taxes, and the group of people that you can raise taxes on the least and get the most return on is the wealthy, They are also the group that can easily absorb this increased burden. some quotes from my opponents Washington post source "The past eight years have discredited once and for all the philosophy of trickle-down economics -- that tax breaks, income gains and wealth creation among the wealthy eventually will work their way down to the middle class," This shows that my opponents argument that cutting taxes on the rich creates jobs is wrong "Clinton, like Obama, argued that the rich had benefited disproportionately from tax cuts enacted by previous Republican administrations" Obama's taxes on the rich will be lower than in the 1990s, and is simple a repeal on the Bush tax breaks. "Clinton tax increases did little to dampen enthusiasm for hard work and professional achievement. " This shows that increased taxes do not damper someone's resolve to make money, or to become wealthy. . http://www.washingtonpost.com... Now I have some questions For the voters Did my opponent prove that obama was wrong? I would like to pint out that if you are indifferent than my opponent has failed to validate his resolution.
The Law of Non-Contradiction is Universally True

I want to make a few things clear beforehand:I'm picking this up for argument's sake alone. I believe in the principle, but I want to try this out and see where it leads. Hegel has tried this, but I find he contradicted his premise. So, here I go.I do - and do not, as described above - accept this challenge.I may argue that the Law of Non-Contradicition is true and false at the same time.My opponent may have the first turn at this.
War Game Scenario: Serbia(pro) versus Croatia (Con)

Well, first, i would like to Mr. Almighty for this well planned war. And yes, i may have had to spend more, but i believe that in besides the point. I was able to repel the Serbian assault, and was able to impose an arms limit on the Serbian army and made a lot of that money back. But in the end it's all up to the voters. October 14th: The Serbian Network is back up to it's pre-war state. August 8th, 2016: Croatia celebrates the anniversary of the treaty of Belgrade.
War Game Scenario: Serbia(pro) versus Croatia (Con)

Smart move accepting the first. August 15 To pay for reparations Serbia liquidates 4 billion in foreign exchanges and gold for it to be used for reparation. Now I think, and I hope you agree also, to let voters decide who was the victor. While we both had good moves let's have voters see who won based on moves and how both ended up. Croatia has much less reserves whiles Serbia still has more and spent less in liquidating reserves.
War Game Scenario: Serbia(pro) versus Croatia (Con)

For clarity's sake, I will void all of Serbia's moves after August 5th. I accept first peace treaty proposed August 6th: The Croatian government convenes a secret meeting in order to determine whether or not to accept a modified plan for piece. The Croatian Generals know that if the war is not ended soon, then one of 2 scenarios will play out. Either the war will stalemate for a few years and Croatia eventually will lose because they cannot match Serbian manpower, or Croatia will lose rapidly as the Serbian network is slowly restored. August 7th: Croatia decides accepts the modified plan for Serbian Surrender. The treaty of Belgrade is signed and ratified by diplomats: Mr. Luharis and Mr. Almighty. It is now as follows: 1. The war is now over 2. Serbia will with withdraw all forces. 3. Serbia will limit it's air force size to 120 planes, army to 160,000, and Tanks to 350. 4. Croatia will return 10,000 Prisoners of War. 5. Croatia will assist in restoring the Serbian Cyber Network. 6. As Croatia is a member of the European Union, This treaty will be enforced by the EU, any further hostilities or backstabbing will be met with a force from the EU. 7. The border will not be changed. 8. Serbia will pay Croatia 4 Billion (Dollars) in reparations. August 8th: The Nation of Croatia Declares August 8th as a National holiday, much celebration ensues within the Country. The PoWs are also returned to Serbia August 12th: As promised Croatia starts the process of helping Serbia rebuild it's network August 14th: With the war over now, The United States now forbids further Croatian manufacturing of the F-15. Croatia may keep the ones already built however.
War Game Scenario: Serbia(pro) versus Croatia (Con)

Very well, i shall not make a a move this turn, but I will just propose a treaty to end the war August 1: The epic Diplomat Luharis proposes the following treaty 1. The war will be over, obviously. 2. Serbia will with withdraw all forces. 3. Serbia will limit it's air force size to 80 planes, army to 160,000, and Tanks to 350. 4. Croatia will return 10,000 Prisoners of War. 5. Croatia will assist in restoring the Serbian Cyber Network. 6. As Croatia is a member of the European Union, This treaty will be enforced by the EU, any further hostilities or backstabbing will be met with a force from the EU. 7. The border will not be changed. 8. Serbia will pay Croatia 4 Billion (Dollars) in reparations. If Serbia would like to accept/reject the treaty, they may do so next round, if they have a question/comment/amendment, they may post it in the comments.
Best college (sports)-Speed Debate

MSU has a very strong atheltics program. Their football team has won the Rose Bowl in 1954,1956,1988,and2014. They won national championships in 1951,1952,1955,1957,1965 and1966. In 2010, the Spartans finished 7–1. Their Basketball program is something even better. Head coach Tom Izzo, has a 403–166 record as of February2012. A very good record. The Spratans made it to the Elite8this March Madness. Off the court they are good too, check out Lacey and Payne on google, I can't fit the link on here.
I am the Real Airmax

First, airmax has misspelled my name. My name is "airmax" not "airax". The way he has spelled it, it's some kind of deadly weapon. I assure you that I am not a weapon (well, at least not in the sense that you would understand what a weapon is). Second, I know all of airmax's secrets. Airax does not. Just ask him. Third, I would never ban conservatives. I am against banning unintelligent people because I think that communities grow and prosper by helping unintelligent people learn. Therefore, banning conservatives is impossible for me :)
I am the Real Airmax

My opponent is spreading a tale of falsehood and lies in the attempt to hoodink the good people of DDO. I am airmax, this is my new incarnation. Airmax1227 no longer exists on this plane, he has been transferred to the nth dimenstion. I am his successor as I return to spread the word of his glory. He is glory. He is the DDO president, for and ever. The capitalist pigs and Nazis shall be driven out of the glorious DDO motherland. My oppoent is an imposter. Hang it. Ha Ha HA Ha! ha! ha! ha! hem! clear my throat!—I've been thinking over it ever since, and that ha, ha's the final consequence. Why so? Because a laugh's the wisest, easiest answer to all that's queer; and come what will, one comfort's always left—that unfailing comfort is, it's all predestinated. I heard not all his talk with Starbuck; but to my poor eye Starbuck then looked something as I the other evening felt. Be sure the old Mogul has fixed him, too. I twigged it, knew it; had the gift, might readily have prophesied it—for when I clapped my eye upon his skull I saw it. Well, Stubb, wise Stubb—that's my title—well, Stubb, what of it, Stubb? Here's a carcase. I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to it laughing. Such a waggish leering as lurks in all your horribles! I feel funny. Fa, la! lirra, skirra! What's my juicy little pear at home doing now? Crying its eyes out?—Giving a party to the last arrived harpooneers, I dare say, gay as a frigate's pennant, and so am I—fa, la! lirra, skirra! Oh— We'll drink to-night with hearts as light, To love, as gay and fleeting As bubbles that swim, on the beaker's brim, And break on the lips while meeting. A brave stave that—who calls? Mr. Starbuck? Aye, aye, sir—(Aside) he's my superior, he has his too, if I'm not mistaken.—Aye, aye, sir, just through with this job—coming. http://classiclit.about.com...
This house woud ban university fees

Thank you even though you have written a good argument but you have only commented on mine, you prove nothing.You are Pro, you say that university fees should be banned, therefore the Burden Of Proof lies on you.I would like to raise that if universities are banned from charging people from their education the half of the best university will go bankrupt. Not only are you willing to ban university fee's but your willing to close down half of our top universities. My argument enables more investment in universities. It will also help attract and keep the best teachers and researchers. Banning the fees universities will have to raise revenue privately then will have to respond to market signals. e.g. Getting sponsorship from the corporate sector may encourage universities to supply course of relevance to the modern world.Congradulations, you have proved my case. I am con, therefore I shoud argue against a university fee ban. However, you are arguing for my side, therefore I have won.My points have been proven by my opponent. Resolution: This house woud ban university feesMy opponent argues against a university fee ban, even though he is pro.Thus, my opponent has argued for the con side.I am con.Therefore, I win.
This house woud ban university fees

Thank you even though you have written a good argument but you have only commented on mine, you prove nothing. I would like to raise that if universities are banned from charging people from their education the half of the best university will go bankrupt. Not only are you willing to ban university fee's but your willing to close down half of our top universities. My argument enables more investment in universities. It will also help attract and keep the best teachers and researchers. Banning the fees universities will have to raise revenue privately then will have to respond to market signals. e.g. Getting sponsorship from the corporate sector may encourage universities to supply course of relevance to the modern world. The fee's will exclude those who do not care about education, those who are eager and wanting to go to university and get their degree, the fee's will increase the income rate of jobs, those who pay will realise how important it is and will willingly learn hard enough to get a degree and be employed. Those who cannot pay will still have a chance, apprenticeships are also available. 'Universities need money to operate' is your argument, how exactly are they meant get that type of money? Sponsorships will not give over a million pounds. They need a fee. 'Post secondary education in some countries does not receive money from the government', is your last argument but what does it prove, it helps my argument. It states that education higher than secondary school does not receive money from the government, then those schools such as college and university have fee's also. This is why we need fee's. The government cannot help our whole lives, then they will go bankrupt. This is why universities should not change and charge students. My point is proven. Grammar mistake: 'recieve' is spelt 'receive', 'stickto' is 'stick to'.
This house woud ban university fees

Throughout your whole life you are basically being paid for. Why would you want another couple years feeling like your just a toy, a ten pound toy which will be thrown away with no legacy, no memory. Paying for what you do is when you finally realise for what it's worth.You are ten pounds throughout your life. Sounds legit.Plus, you should realize what life is worth. Money cannot describe what life is worth.Wait...your argument was not about university fees (the resolution of the debate), so I assume that this is only an opening statement.There was a boy, he was in set 6 for everything. Then when it came to GCSE he failed miserably and had to another four years of work, because he had not thought of the future, he had wasted his life (four years) because he did not see the advantage.The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) is an academic qualification awarded in a specified subject.[1] I do not see how failing at it has to do with banning university fees, though. The problem in this case is his score, the university fee did not cause him to fail. Why then let millions of hopeless kids enter a school, which has mostly every learning possession you need without them understanding the value.So you want kids to pay for university to understand his value, but you are on the pro side for banning university fees. Therefore you have contradicted yourself.They also keep children aware of the economic state, if they stroll around all day by the shops, and one day ending up a cheap old hag who spent his life making NOTHING out of it. Then there. Ban children from understanding the future. Stick to that thought. Think of that boy. Think of the economic state. THINK.THINK of making this debate stickto the resolution. LINK the source of where you found your information. THINK about how this debate is about banning university fees, not about banning children from understanding the future. THINK!Arguments for university fees:Universities need money to operate. Post secondary education in some countries does not recieve money from the government. [2]Therefore, universities need to charge fees. Sources:[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
This house woud ban university fees

Throughout your whole life you are basically being paid for. Why would you want another couple years feeling like your just a toy, a ten pound toy which will be thrown away with no legacy, no memory. Paying for what you do is when you finally realise for what it's worth. There was a boy, he was in set 6 for everything. Then when it came to GCSE he failed miserably and had to another four years of work, because he had not thought of the future, he had wasted his life (four years) because he did not see the advantage. Why then let millions of hopeless kids enter a school, which has mostly every learning possession you need without them understanding the value. They also keep children aware of the economic state, if they stroll around all day by the shops, and one day ending up a cheap old hag who spent his life making NOTHING out of it. Then there. Ban children from understanding the future. Stick to that thought. Think of that boy. Think of the economic state. THINK.
Evolution is true

I challenge con to this debate.First round for acceptance means only. (Heh, I sound like a scholar.) However, some ground rules:My BOP will be that Evolution is true. My opponent's BOP will be that Evolution is false.Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ARGUMENTS ONLYRound 3: REBUTTALS ONLYRound 4: POLISHING UP ONLY (no new arguments and/or rebuttals allowed.)Rules:Plagiarism not allowedForfeiture not allowedBreaking structure of debate is not allowed.Personal attacks are not allowed.Violating ANY one of these rules results in a full loss of ALL seven points.By accepting, these points will go unargued, and you agree to everything above. Under NO cicumstances will ANYTHING in this round be changed. Good luck to the opposition.
Notebook Akku f"r Sony VGP-BPS13B/B

Bei diesem Angebot f"r Sony VGP-BPS13B/B handelt es sich um einen hochwertigen Akku, Der sich ideal als Austauschakku f"r Ihren alten oder defekten Laptop Akku f"r Sony VGP-BPS13B/B, Aber auch als zus"tzlicher ersatz akku f"r unterwegs eignet. Die Verwendung und das Laden des Akkus erfolgt wie gewohnt, Problemlos "ber Ihr Standard-Ladeger"t/Netzteil. Eine Schutzelektronik und die Verarbeitung hochwertiger Komponenten bieten Ihnen ein hohes Ma" an Sicherheit, Sowohl gegen "berladung, Als auch gegen Kurzschluss. So kann der Sony VGP-BPS13B/B Akku eine h"here Anzahl von Lade-Entlade-Zyklen erreichen. Dies bedeutet eine l"ngere Lebensdauer Ihres neuen Akkus. Es wurden ausschlie"lich neue Qualit"ts-Markenzellen verwendet, Z. B. Von Samsung, Panasonic, Sanyo und weiterer namhafter Hersteller. Als einer der gr""ten deutschen Direktimporteure von Akkus verf"gen wir "ber ein umfangreiches Lager. Diese hohe Verf"gbarkeit von Akkus aus neuester Produktion, Gepaart mit einem ausgezeichneten Preis-/Leistungsverh"ltnis, Sch"tzen unsere Kunden in vielen europ"ischen L"ndern. Nagelneu Laptop-Batterie, Laptop Akku online shop - pcakku-kaufen. Com http://www. Pcakku-kaufen. ComPcakku-kaufen. Com ist ein Online-Anbieter f"r Notebook/Laptop-Akkus und Ladeger"te, Einschlie"lich vieler Marken wie Acer, Apple, Asus, Dell, Fujitsu, HP / Compaq, IBM, Lenovo, Sony, Toshiba. . . Unsere Ware ist preiswert, Qualitativ hochwertig und mit 1 Jahre Garantie gedeckt. Wir garantieren einen sicheren Einkauf sowie eine rasche Zustellung. Akku Sony VGP-BPS13B/B http://www. Pcakku-kaufen. Com/sony-vgp-bps13b_b-laptop-akku. Html Akku Sony VGP-BPS13B/S http://www. Pcakku-kaufen. Com/sony-vgp-bps13b_s-laptop-akku. Html Akku Sony VGP-BPS13S http://www. Pcakku-kaufen. Com/sony-vgp-bps13s-laptop-akku. Html Akku Sony VGP-BPS13/B http://www. Pcakku-kaufen. Com/sony-vgp-bps13_b-laptop-akku. Html Akku Sony VGP-BPS13B/Q http://www. Pcakku-kaufen. Com/sony-vgp-bps13b_q-laptop-akku. Html Akku Sony VAIO VGN-Z http://www. Pcakku-kaufen. Com/sony-vaio-vgn-z-laptop-akku. Html Akku Sony VGP-BPS8 http://www. Pcakku-kaufen. Com/sony-vgp-bps8-laptop-akku. Html Akku Sony VGP-BPS9 http://www. Pcakku-kaufen. Com/sony-vgp-bps9-laptop-akku. Html
after all, you are just a Christian

"I am not JUST A CHRISTIAN. Neither are you. So I will respond in the spirit of things here".(pun intended) LOL! All Christian/Judeans/ Islamic are not Christian/Judeans/ Islamic because they are deists as well" they just don"t know it and therefore deny it as a matter of self-imposed ignorance. The Christian/Judeans/ Islamic religions are all based in polytheism and some of the god"s they use to worship didn"t interfere or interact with man"some like Yahweh did, he demanded human sacrifices preformed on an altar. http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com...
Gun Rights

Listen, I believe we have the right to bear arms. With handguns. We don't need assault rifles. But with Canada, it is peaceful, and they didn't ban guns. BUT, it's not easy to get a gun. In 2013, Canada had 131 gun deaths. In 2013, the U.S. had 11,208 deaths. In the U.S., it's obviously easy to get a gun. And the excuse of Canada's quite lower population can't apply. In the U.S., about 315 Million people live here. In Canada 35 Million people live there. Do the math. Also, you talked about Britain being quite peaceful, but I couldn't find any statistics so....eh well. Hahaha. About the second amendment though, here's the thing. You are right. I don't want the second amendment to be changed, because it clearly says, ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It just shouldn't be changed, it's fine. I'm just saying, even back then, they knew that not anyone should have a gun, as it said at the beginning, "A well-regulated militia." Assault rifles, it's called home defense. So lets do the math, Canada has 35/315 the population of America, or 7/63, or 1/9, so if Canada had the same population as us, they would have 1,179 deaths, we have 11,208, so, yeah.
Gun Rights

Listen, I believe we have the right to bear arms. With handguns. We don't need assault rifles. But with Canada, it is peaceful, and they didn't ban guns. BUT, it's not easy to get a gun. In 2013, Canada had 131 gun deaths. In 2013, the U.S. had 11,208 deaths. In the U.S., it's obviously easy to get a gun. And the excuse of Canada's quite lower population can't apply. In the U.S., about 315 Million people live here. In Canada 35 Million people live there. Do the math. Also, you talked about Britain being quite peaceful, but I couldn't find any statistics so....eh well. Hahaha. About the second amendment though, here's the thing. You are right. I don't want the second amendment to be changed, because it clearly says, ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It just shouldn't be changed, it's fine. I'm just saying, even back then, they knew that not anyone should have a gun, as it said at the beginning, "A well-regulated militia."
School should only go for 4 days a week.

Your argument has a flaw in it. In that survey, it has more people with 20 hours or more relaxing. If you mean sitting in a chair playing video games is relaxing, students should instead be focusing on material for school. You should set aside one hour for studying to the max. You say four days, I say it is a waste of effective teaching. Consider our other breaks, like spring break or summer break. One day more in our breaks would not be fair. Many state boards in Oklahoma oppose this.(1) The day that can be used for learning will instead be used for doing nothing. You already have a whole summer break to spend time with family members and rest. Gl to my opponent and this was a very good debate. No forfeits, and no concessions.
School should only go for 4 days a week.

You are right Pro. My point here is that: Students getting extra days off is not going to help them get better grades. Some kids do not care about it. Even if you give them a whole week off, some won't just fall in line and begin doing their work. They will continue being disruptive even if they get a whole week off. Being antisocial is not caused by school. School is a place to learn, not to fool around, or to give out free breaks to people who want them. Pro states that this would be a benefit because students have extra time to do their assignments. Pro said on the argument before that assignments cause students to get stressed out. Didn't he say students needed breaks to get away from schoolwork and extracurricular activities? GL
School should only go for 4 days a week.

Con, You made a very good point and I apologies for my lack of proof, however you may want to check your own argument as you have not really put forth any clear points. Your argument completely lacks structure. Rebuttal: Con asked, what would children do when they do have time to sleep, he was obviously questioning whether or not they would actually be sleeping. However if Students did have Friday off then they would have time to do their assignments that extra free day instead of needing more sleeping Good luck
School should only go for 4 days a week.

Hello Pro. This seems like an interesting topic to debate. We are talking about school being reduced to 4 days. I don't see why it should as it will make no difference. School is already 5 days long, so making it 1 day less will make no difference. Pro starts off by saying that students are busy doing schoolwork and extra curriculum activities. He provides no source to support the evidence. He also states that the students get too stressed out. He states 4 days are enough for a student to regain sleep and relax. Rebuttal: If this is the case, then what are students doing when they do have time to sleep? They stay up all night doing what? If a student decides not to do their homework in the morning, they took that decision. Gl.