BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Civil disobedience is an appropiate weapon in the fight for justice.

ummmm.....yeah.....imma just sart and stop by saying thnx for the debate bro!!!! next time lets debate something i know bout huh!?!?! i guess i give.....you win spencer!!!! :D but 2 no 3 things.... 1. davis never sees this.... 2. this is never brought up in class, at a tournament, or when around.... 3. Spencer from criminal Minds is a freakin nerd!!!! 4. ill see you either b4 school or on the first day.... Congrats on ur astronomical win brada!!!!! l8erz.... :D p.s.......i just let you win.... XD
Civil disobedience is an appropiate weapon in the fight for justice.

However, her video on "civil disobedience gone wrong" have nothing to do with the topic. It is about a girl pretending to be a hippie with anger management problems. The thing about civil disobedience is that it is organized. People organize these things. They don't just go ranting and raving into the public eye, screaming things that no one understands. Those girls know nothing about the ethics of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King Jr, and Gandhi each had different ways of getting things done, both using civil disobedience, but both very peaceful. Same with Rosa Parks. My opponent has no standing case and has failed to even attack my own. However, because this is the last round she cannot unfortunately bring up any new arguments, and therefore must attempt to defend a case which does not stand. As a favor to her, I will end this here. Thank you.
Civil disobedience is an appropiate weapon in the fight for justice.

okay i would like to point out to the public that im new to this and my brother has been in this for years!!!!!!! okay hippies are the one good example of civil disobedience gone wrong!!!!! http://www.youtube.com...; they're civil disobedience examples...thats wat they have to do with it.... can you imagine if everyone protested like this...where would we be!?!?!?! think bout that voters....
Civil disobedience is an appropiate weapon in the fight for justice.

I would like to begin by telling my opponent that there is no guarnatee Davis will never see this. My opponent stated, "peaceful violation isnt a violation if its peaceful...." In response, I would like to point out that the word "violation" in this case means breaking of the law. Thus, it can be peaceful or not. For example, if my school were to enforce a dress code, and one day I decided to wear somthing different, I have "violated" the rule. But I did so in a peaceful manner. So this argument does not stand, and my definition still stands. "my opponent has no doubt contradicted herself by going against herself in saying that rules need to be broken to prove a faulty government..." I'm not saying that they HAVE to be roken. I merely stated an example of how civil disobedience has helped us before. There is no contradiction, because my entire second contention shows how civil disobedience has helped in the past. So my opponents attck does not stand. Further, I would like to ask my opponent what hippies have to do with anything? And what war came from civil disobedience? My opponent has no case, and therefore has no attacks against my own.
Civil disobedience is an appropiate weapon in the fight for justice.

okay first off to my opponent thank you for the challenge.... i would also further like to ask my opponent to never bring this up to davis, the class, at a tournament, ECT..... okay i will begin by attacking my opponents case and then giving mine... my opponent mentions in her opening statement that civil disobedience is "deliberate, open, and peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, military or police orders." and,"If the violation does not fit this code, it cannot be called civil disobedience." i would like to point out that my opponent also states that "When the United States first became a nAtion, didn't someone break the rules to prove we had a faulty government." obviously the "peaceful violation isnt a violation if its peaceful.... a 'peaceful violation' is protected in the first amendment so its not a violation at all... my opponent has no doubt contradicted herself by going against herself in saying that rules need to be broken to prove a faulty government... so my opponents definition oes not stand.... since we have no clear definition and a contradictive second contention i will now offer my case... civil disobedience is never the answer because according to Websters Dictionary civil disobedience is "the act of intentionally getting seen to get something done" Hippies for example weren't always peaceful...they commited acts of civil disobedience that was very innapropriate.... the war sparked from civil disobedience and is against many rules of the U.N. im now open for my opponents next argument...
Civil disobedience is an appropiate weapon in the fight for justice.

I'd like to begin by pointing out what consitutes as "civil disobedience". According to Black' Law dictionary, civil disobedience is "deliberate, open, and peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, military or police orders." If the violation does not fit this code, it cannot be called civil disobedience. My first point is that civil disobedience is a last resort. Legal channels can never truly be exhausted, as there is always another chance to write a letter to a senetor and newspapers. You can always wait a year and cast another vote. But these options are time consuming, and if nothing is accomplished, than what was all that time used for? When one has tried all legal channels and has nothing to show for it, then it is time to take the next step. In the case of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., segregation had been going on for about 340 years. Where is the justice in that? Someone had to do something, and standing up against the law as Dr. King did was the only way to do it. People never took notice of all the letters written, but as soon as people like Dr. King and Rosa Parks stood up, heads turned. My second point is civil disobedience has helped in the past and can continue to help in the future When the United States first became a nwtion, didn't someone break the rules to prove we had a faulty government? When colored people were not given the same privledges as whites didn't someone have to stand up (or in the case of Rosa Parks, sit down) for what they believed was right, was just? Through acts of cvil disobedience, Gandhi helped to bring justice to a corrupt government in India. People always say to learn from the past. In this case, history keeps telling us one thing: civil disobedience has helped! It was civil disobedience that has helped to shape the United States, one of the longest standing democracies ever. William E. Gladstone said, "Justice delayed is justice denied." King argued that after a point, patience in fighting an injustice perpetuates that injustice. Basically, if you are trying to fix an injustice, but your methods accomplish nothing, after a while, you are just adding to that injustice. Our Declaration tells us that if we have the ability, then we have the reponsibitly to take action and fix things that are unjust.
Socialism is MUCH better for the bottom 2/3rds than Capitalism

We should NOT "stop looking at only the benefits of socialism" because THAT is the WHOLE POINT! HERE if you make LESS 20$/hour, you are almost always paid HOURLY and in most circumstances considered ENTRY level or NEAR entry level, and under those circumstances employers treat you TERRIBLY because they do NOT give you ANY Sick Pay or ANY Vacation Pay or ANY Personal Pay or ANY Holiday Pay or ANY Medical Benefits or ANY Dental Benefits or ANY Life Insurance or ANY Optical Benefits or ANY Retirement Benefits or ANY 401k or ANY Pension or ANY Perks or ANY Discounts or ANY other benefits that DOES come with employment for the TOP FIFTY 50% of income earners. HOW do ALL of these GREAT POSITIVE things have "negatives"? The POINT is that if you make MORE money and are in a BETTER position in the company you should NOT get better BENEFITS, you already get MUCH BETTER PAY! I am talking about doing what they've done in the HIGHEST Standard of Living countries ON THE PLANET: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxemborg, Switzerland, Germany, France, etc. You do NOT see ANYONE in THOSE countries waiting in line for bread!! We CANT become "capitalists but with a cap" because THAT is NOT CAPITALISM!!! Though I would be ok with having a MAXIMUM WAGE. Your option of MANDATORY wealth distribution is THE SAME as what I'm proposing! What's the difference if we have a HIGH Minimum Wage and EASY Unionization and FREE college versus FORCED equal distribution of the companies income? EVERYONE pays income tax EVERYONE pays sales tax EVERYONE pays property tax, therfore EVERYONE is funding those IN NEED. Sure MOST people can get a job at Walmart or McDonalds, but MY POINT is that they start you out at MINIMUM WAGE and they ONLY give you between ZERO and TEN CENTS raise EACH YEAR!! We have the bottom FIFTY 50% being ABUSED FINANCIALLY!!! EVERYONE in the bottom HALF of the country makes $14/hour or LESS!!! THAT is FINANCIAL ABUSE!!! ONLY the RICH get RICH in capitalism, whereas EVERYONE in Socialism is MIDDLE CLASS or better, HERE we have POOR and LOW class!!!!
Socialism is MUCH better for the bottom 2/3rds than Capitalism

Stop looking at only the benefits of socialism and start looking at the whole picture. I would love it if everyone got free food and free health care and free whatever... but that is not the case. All of those positives bring negatives. Look at all of history. Every socialist country has devolved into a state where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The sonly difference between this a capitalism is how socialists can achieve permanent wealth faster than capitalists. You never see people waiting in line for a loaf of bread in capitalist countries! Personally I think there is a third option. We should be capitalists but with a cap. Every business owner can take no more than 51% of the profits. The rest of the profits goes to the employees. This way everyone, owner and employee, has a reason to work hard but the cap on profits means no single person will be so elite that they are untouchable. Aside from those things... My opponent said "FREE college FREE healthcare UNLIMITED Sick Pay, UNLIMITED Unemployment Pay" So those people get FREE money. Where the hell does that money come from? Someone has to pay for it. Under his policy, the government pays out a lot of money to people. That means the government charges higher taxes. Higher taxes leads to higher costs in goods and services everyone uses. So everyone pays more so that a certain few can have UNLIMITED Unemployment? We work to support a lazy guy who cannot find a job, even at McDonalds??? A 100% perfect safety net means we can all stop trying and just live off of government services. I would also like to point out how socialists governments always have complete control and the people as a whole suffer. Another thing, in capitalism we have a small percentage being abused (economically). In socialism they have 90% of people being abused. Where in the world has socialism worked? I know the dream is great, we are all equal and we all get the same ability to eat and visit doctors. But the real world is different. Socialist countries have more poor than capitalists! No bread lines in America! For the record, I hate capitalism. It is the most selfish way to organize a community. We all think only of ourselves like selfish pricks. Socialism is worse than capitalism. It takes what I said to a new level. The rich only care about the rich. Look at many of the socialist countries in the world today. Cuba, Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela and so on. Would you say their people live better lives than Americans do?
U.S government should make more of an effort to stop ISIS

ISIS's threat on American citizens is minimal if it exists at all. They have killed less than five americans, and none of them were on American soil! How can you justify that ISIS is a threat at all. Money spent to destroy this destitute minuscule threat is wasted especially when the national debt is taken into consideration. Clearly the government has blow ISIS out of proportion and has mass marketed this propaganda for their own agenda whatever that may be.
U.S government should make more of an effort to stop ISIS

Obviously there are other oppressive regimes, but last time I checked, they didn't kill innocent American citizens. In this case, the US government has an obligation through the Constitution to safeguard its citizens. Letting ISIS continue to terrorize isn't going to solve anything. ISIS is only gaining membership and strength. If the United States shifts its foreign policy to be even more lax towards terrorists, more American lives are going to be at risk. Regarding your comment about Washington, we don't live in the 18th century. It's called globalization. America is more involved than ever with other nations around the world.
U.S government should make more of an effort to stop ISIS

The U.S. government does not need to make an effort to stop ISIS. Their are hundreds of other oppressive regimes including North Korea that take a higher priority. The only reason the public knows about ISIS is because the U.S. government is trying to cover up something else and over exaggerate the media. George Washington once said in his farewell address was that his primary concern was to have the U.S. not intervene with outside affairs. ISIS should be dealt with the nations around them. Not with a nation across the world and loses money trying to buy oil for their planes.
U.S government should make more of an effort to stop ISIS

As a nation built on a foundation of democratic values, the United States has an obligation to smother oppressive regimes. In the debate of US involvement in the middle east regarding ISIS fundamentalism, the same principles would expand to include radicalism. There have been several incidents in the past year where US journalists have been captured and executed just for ISIS political gains. In this scenario, it would go against the United States core values of freedom and democracy. If the US does not get involved now, ISIS will continue to terrorize and oppress innocent people, including American citizens. #wedontnegotiateterrorists
There is Alien life in the Universe

Are there Alien life forms anywhere in the universe outside of our Planet? To clarify, in this Debate I (Pro) shall be arguing that Alien life forms do exist within the Universe. You (Con) shall be arguing that Aliens, in actuality, do not exist. Definitions: Aliens: Life forms that live outside of Planet Earth Universe: All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. Outline: 1. Acceptance only 2. Arguments 3. Clash 4. Closing Summaries Good Luck!
The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim is a better RPG than Dragon Age: Origins

Hi! First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for the interesting debate topic. Have fun! THE ELDER SCROLLS: SKYRIM vs. DRAGON AGE: ORIGINS 1. Superior Graphics. I don’t really think I need to thoroughly explain how and why the graphics in Skyrim are superior to those of the first Dragon Age game. Moving on. 2 and 3. Non-linear Storyline, and Random Battles. Skyrim starts the player out with a main quest, yes, but once you escape Helgen, the player can ignore that quest indefinitely with minimal repercussions. Dragon Age, however, allows the player to see the Darkspawn Invasion as it progresses over time and throughout the game. As the game progresses, and as you waste time, for instance, wooing Alistair, the Dark Spawn Invasion progressively worsens. As this happens, random battles become so irritatingly frequent that they almost force the player to complete the quest (and therefore, end the game.) 4. Open World. Skyrim gives the player an open world to run around in. Dragon Age: Origins, in contrast, gives you the option to fast travel to a certain number of “rooms”. There are no open plains to get lost in, no caves in which to spelunk, and Dragon Age lacks the feeling of distance between Flemmeth’s hut and the Brecilian Forest- save, perhaps, for the random battles mentioned in point 2. In Skyrim, however, you can walk the distance between Riften and Markarth if you so choose. Most probably don’t, but it is nice to have the option. 5. Increased Control over your Character’s Level(s) Upon gaining enough experience in Skyrim, the ancient nords of the frozen wastes will promt you to Level Up (with some spiffy chanting and a glowy text). Should you ignore this promt, it will simply appear, almost randomly, in the upper left corner of the screen. Beyond this, however, the game will not force you to level up or choose perks or anything of the sort. Dragon Age, however, levels you up automatically. Some may see this as more convenient, but I see it as somewhat annoying. This wraps up my round. I look forward to Con’s responses : )
Something could have possibly come from nothing

It is one I anticipated however. Refuting My Opponent's Objection"I admit that my opponent uses a good argument, but he ignores a big point. Does TPFTFS even exist? If TPFTFS doesn't exists, it fully refutes your point, and proves something can't come from nothing. "Although it is an interesting objection, my opponent seems to have ignored one big point regarding his argument here as well. Lets change the variable S ("something") to STE ("something" to "exist") to form a new question I can answer, that will also answer Con's question sufficiently in the process. Also, we will include E ("existing") as well in the question. Q: Is TPFTFSTE = E compatible with the conclusion in my argument? The answer is, yes. This is because it is possible that TPFRTS = E, even if STE =/= E, because TPFSTE =/= S, as I have already established. To make it more clear, if the potential for the first something to exist, exists, this would not mean that something exists, because I have already established that this potential for the first something that exists, could not be something under any circumstance (it's contradictory). To elaborate even further, TPFTFSTE = N still. This conclusion must be true logically. If TPFTFSTE = S, then the same problem I presented in my first argument would still apply here. Thus, anyway you look at it, TPFTFSTE = N, necessarily. In conclusion, if I said "nothing existed", I am also saying "the potential for something to exist, existed". This would be the exact same comment. Since this particular type of potential cannot be something coherently I explained earlier, then we have two categories:(i) The potential for the first something to exist, existing (ii) Something existingSince both of these cannot be something, as I established in my first round, then (i) must logically entail the lack of something, and thus equate to nothing. To say "nothing existed", is to also say that "the potential for the first something to exist, existed" as well. This means that something could still possibly come from nothing. The potential for the first "something" to "exist" "existing", simply cannot be "something" that "exists" "existing" under any context coherently. This means the potential for the first "something" to "exist" "existing" must be "nothing" "existing", and since "nothing" "existing" is the potential for the first "something" to "exist" "existing", "something" "existing" could still possibly be allowed to exist because potential directly infers possibility. Therefore, my opponent's objection does not stand, while my argument remains unscathed.
The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia

I do want say something key, I am not completely against the idea, But there is a trend of society overall. Traditions rarely last long, The original ones. July 4th is the day America became independent, And adopted the declaration of independence. Most people don't know that. Originally it was not a holiday, As is is now, Instead it is a celebration, Why, Just to celebrate. This does not apply to everyone, Just a lot of people in America. Also you said "Australians only care if they get a day off. (most)" so if that is why they are making the holiday, Then it should not be one, Also my opinion. My final idea is this. If people don't know about the event as much now, Someone has to announce it. Someone who is power and has influence, Most powerful people would not go through the trouble of announcing it, So it's likely it would not happen anyways. But still, I'm not completely against the holiday, I just think a holiday is a day of celebration then a day of mourning. Not completely against it though
The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia

Fist I would like to address some problems in cons argument: When people make a holiday out of something it's normally a day of celebration. In Australia, We have a public holiday for Anzac day. This is about our fallen soldiers in the wars. This is not a celebration. I would make a building or a museum to commemorate them, And so Australians know more about the information. Australians only care if they get a day off. (most) A public holiday is the only way to speed to the news. Most Australians don't even know we had an emu war. This is why I believe a public holiday would make it a well known and commemorated event. Also if we did maybe Americans would start pronouncing emu correct.
The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia

So i am not completely against making a holiday in australia, I just think there are better way to commemorate the fallen people. When people make a holiday out of something its normally a day of celebration. There are (in america) veterans day and other events so its not completely a bad idea. Instead of making a holiday, I would make a building or a museum to commemorate them, And so Australians know more about the information. What I find in holidays is people make a Mockery of the event, Even in america, So there are better ways to commemorate it my opinion. Also I give full respect to you and hopefully have a good debate.
The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia

The great emu war is a major event in Australia's history. It's a prime example of the ninja-like abilities emu's withhold within them. The great emu war was initiated in the early year of 1932. Major G. P. W Meridith was among the men that went out to viciously slaughter emus. While there were no human casualties, Around 986 of Australia's treasured emus dyed courageously protecting their territory. The Emus won the war when the people surrender to them in 1945. I believe the fallen emus should be commemorated by a public holiday, Giving all Australians a day to commemorate our brave fallen soldiers. About emu war: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=QOPZQHTNUs0
Zero Divided by Zero is Zero.

First 1/0 is not infinity. 1/0 does not exist because there is not a number which could be multiplied by 0 do result in 1 . ( 1/0 =c => C x 0 =1 "false ") Next infinty x 0 does not equal 0 because infinity is not as you defined it anything it is everything so it is not a singular number it more like a concept thus you cannot multiply 0 by infinity. The operation is non-sensical in itself. So to rephrase although your assumption was false and cant exist also your second is false.
Zero Divided by Zero is Zero.

No it isn't and i shall prove why . Multiplication is the simple way a/b=c where bxc=a. The simple view is to think of a group of apples and you are trying to divide them to a number of children equally. When you are doing a/0 =c it means that there exists where 0 x c = a but any number which is multiplied by 0 is 0 so a can only be 0 so you get 0/0=c . So what does this tell you about c ? you know that c can be any number in existence because any number multiplied with 0 is 0....