BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Supports the Brexit

Thank you good proposition. The issue I will adress now is the fact that there is strength in number. Firstly, when we talk about trade, supposedly right, that there are 'too much' costs that are incurred when Britain remains in the EU. Also, when the proposition is trying to talk about the economic benefits or costs, he/she should have basic understanding of economics itself, in line with political situations. Suppose that Britain leaves the EU, the cost they will incur to facilitate trade with respective countries that they trade with will be far more than the alleged value thay Britain is paying for its 'membership'. Also, when we talk about secuirty, Britain is actually much safer when they remain in the EU. Yes, the proposition might argue that by being in the EU, with its Schengen area, Britain cannot control its borders from the the threat of 'terrorists', but studies have shown, that these terroriet attacks, such as the Paris bombing, is homegrown. Yes, these 'terrorists' might be foreign in descent, but we cannot blame the immigration system for this. It is the issue of the educational system. How is Britain more secure by being in the EU? In terms of immigration itself, be it refugees or economic migrants, member states can share information and costs, and through distribution of costs, respective countries can achieve economies of scale through agglomeration. But this still does not answer how secure Britain can be. The Office for Budget Responsibility reports that much of public services are financed by taxes by immigrant workers. Also there's a high correlation economic growth with the level of immigration. This provide a security net for Britain in terms of its financial security. Talking about finances, leads to my next point, on the issue of services provided by Britian for the rest of EU, especially when we consider the fact that Britian is a service-based economy. The financial services centre in Britain employ around 2.1 million people, and this bulwark of the industry is stable mainly because of the EU internal market legislation. Investors do not mind takin risks, but looking at political uncertainty, and especially one with huge implications to the financial sector, they will be scared off. There's been talk of HSBC relocating its HQ away from London, and this will be made true, especially if Britain is to leave the EU, for gigantic multinational companies such as HSBC, prefers freer access to the market. This will greatly affect Britain's economy. That is all. Thank you
This House Supports the Brexit

I will first begin my addressing the rebuttals made by my opponent to defend my arguments. My opponent started off by accusing me of not understanding opportunity cost. Let me assure him that I have quite a good idea of what opportunity cost means. He then brings in some technical terms with the hopes of confusing us to believe in him. Basically, he brushes off my argument which is the net high costs of remaining in the EU by accusing my data as biased and claiming that the opportunity of free trade justifies the cash. We have to remember that the costs of remaining in the EU have been rising STEADILY these past few years. If it has just been rising the last couple of years, yes, we might still be optimistic. But the truth is we are starting to question how much of a benefit this supposed free trade is when the figures have continuously been rising. When you consider that these costs are almost at par with medical costs in Britain, how long can we trick ourselves into thinking that "you know, this is all for free trade. All this cost is justified." And that is why I brought up the countries Norway and Switzerland. These countries are proof that you can stay out of the EU without having to succumb to membership fees. I was not at all implying that Britain should adopt a Nordic model. Of course, as a country with values of its own, they should negotiate a different treaty and a different model that suits them. Finally, I agree that America has no rights to comment on the Brexit. I was in no way implying that we should 'make Britain great again' as per Trump's model. And I never said that we should disallow refugees/migrants. I said that we should be able to draw our own laws up and not follow Brussel's laws, if for nothing else other than to maintain Britain's standing in the eyes of the world as an independent and strong nation. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Now I will rebut my opponent's points. My opponent claimed that Britain throughout history has almost had strong ties with Europe and they have prospered. TO this argument, I will say that times have changed. When you look at how Greece, France and Spain's economies are struggling, you start to ask questions of how much longer Britain is expected to help out. My opponent then said Britain must not close its borders. Who said anything about closing borders? We will accept migrants and refugees but we will do so independently without Brussels ordering us what to do. Shutting down borders is totally different from remaining in the EU. I reaffirm that Britain should and must exit from the EU for the benefit of the British people.
Prostitution should be legalized in the United States.

It's been fun =) Clash for Contention 1: My opponent said "We've demonized prostituition. .. " By 'we' I assume he means the general population, and he did NOT present facts on it. I'd like that statment stricken from the debate. I don't seek penalties or anything for it, just disreguard. Clash for Contention 2: It's not just about murder. There have been politicans who have cheated on their wives with prositutes. www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/. .. /AR2007070902030. html This has created problems for the family who did not have any involvment with prostitutes and not only that, the country. The prostitutes saftey and overall well being isn't the only concern- it's everyones. Indeed, brothels have been organized and heavily regulated in Nevada and Rhode Island, but these are already legalized and do not follow the debate topic. Which is my preposition of a alternative. Brothels. The resolution does not state specifically organized, regulated prostitution, but prostitution in general, and with that I disagree. My opponent even states his/her support for it. (. .. should be regulated. ) My opponent seems to have forgotten the Harm Principle, and strayed a little from it. However, my entire foundation has been on safety. The safety of the prostitute, the 'client', and the client's potential family/friends. It is COMMON SENSE that prostitution is not entirely safe, and my opponent has concedded that, and I quote, "For the sake of convenience I will grant to my opponent that prostitution may harm its participants albeit inadvertently" This goes agenst his own principle, and supports my use for it. This is the main reason why I believe I have won. The secondary reason being I have successfully clashed, dissected my opponents case, and provided a better alternative on which we both seem to agree.
Prostitution should be legalized in the United States.

Let me begin by thanking James.ticknor for his time and his willingness to debate with me on this issue. For the record, I am personally opposed to prostitution in the same way that I am opposed to eating meat. However, I would never dream of imposing my personal conduct on other people insofar as their behavior did not harm anyone. ======= Case Pro- Rebuttals ======= Contention 1: Appealing to the crowd MY opponent has already conceded that he has used the argumentum ad populum fallacy when he wrote, "Soliciting sex for money is proven immoral and not just an offense to one, lone person, but many. It would be different if the numbers were fewer." In light of this he then goes on to convict me of using it, which is a bit silly. At no point in either of my first two essays have I made an appeal to public opinion or argued that because the majority of people approve of X then we should legalize X. Contention 2: Prostitution related deaths There will always be unscrupulous people in this world that prey on women, but that doesn't mean that we should equate prostitution with physical abuse. Arguing that prostitution should be outlawed because prostitutes occasionally get murdered is like arguing that strip clubs should be outlawed because strippers occasionally get murdered. Therefore this argument can be dismissed. If we are concerned about the safety of prostitutes and their clients then this would provide a powerful argument that prostitution should be regulated, not outlawed. This has already been successfully accomplished in Nevada. [1] ======= Conclusion ======= Throughout this debate we have seen no good reasons why prostitution should be outlawed and I have given four strong arguments in favor of legalizing it. It's easy to see through the hypocrisy behind the arguments against prostitution because they could also apply to other activities that are harmful like drinking and smoking. Smoking not only kills tens of millions of people around the globe every year but it's also responsible for a plethora of different disease that relate to second hand smoking. [2] In order to deal with these problems our society has set up regulations that prevent people from smoking in public buildings, among other things. We can also take the same approach to prostitution by regulating it in order to ensure the safety and well being of prostitutes and their clients. (Resolution Affirmed)- Vote Pro Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.healthline.com... ======== Clarification: ======== My round two sources had some problems with the way they were organized. Here is an updated list in case there was any confusion. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... [3] http://www.car-accidents.com... [4] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... Good luck :)
Prostitution should be legalized in the United States.

1) On note to the point of my "Arguementum ad populum fallacy", I will just ask to you to look at your own moral standard. 2) "I have already demonstrated that prostitution can harm no one apart from those that choose to willingly engage in it. I don't contradict myself in saying that the harm principle clears prostitution because prostitution is incapable of harming or impeding the rights of anyone that is not involved in it of their own free will." This is NOT true. www.msnbc.msn.com/www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers//www.examiner.com/x-3284-Detroit-Top-News-Examiner~y2009m8d17-Livingston-County-Doctor-beaten-to-death-after-prostitution Just look at these three examples of prostitution related deaths. There is also the (great, in my opinion) movie MONSTER based on a true story of a prostitute who ends up going on a killing spree because of her 'job'. Whether the harm is direct or indirect of prostitution it does not matter, so my opponent DOES contradict himself. 3) "Demonized Point" Fine, but I'd like to point out that you also used the argumentum ad populum fallacy. 4) I'm having difficulty understanding the relevance of my opponents analogy. What if I didn't know that the person had an STD? That's not my fault, and that's no accident. Point 5) ....good luck, bud.
Prostitution should be legalized in the United States.

It has been up for quite a while and up until this point no one has accepted it. =============== Case PRO- Rebuttals =============== Contention 1: The Offense Principle "Soliciting sex for money is proven immoral and not just an offense to one, lone person, but many. It would be different if the numbers were fewer. " -James. ticknor Instead of going into an elaborate rebuttal I will simply point out that my opponent has created an argumentum ad populum fallacy. [1] Contention 2: The Harm Principle I have already demonstrated that prostitution can harm no one apart from those that choose to willingly engage in it. I don't contradict myself in saying that the harm principle clears prostitution because prostitution is incapable of harming or impeding the rights of anyone that is not involved in it of their own free will. The fact that we demonized things that result in copious amounts of pleasure is evidenced by our drug policies, among other things. [2] And this issue is of no relevance at any rate so your desire to contend it would be little more than a waste of time. Contention 3: Prostitution and STDS "QUESTIONS: Who's the one victemized when an STD is transferred? Is this a victemless crime? " -James. ticknor My opponent's argument could also be applied, with equal validity, to outlaw driving, and thus is invalid. Any harm that prostitution may result in through STDS is constrained only to the individuals that engage in sex of their own free consent. Driving on the other hand has be known for decades to kill thousands of people and tens of thousands of innocent bystanders. ---> "Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes. " [2] ========= Conclusion ========= The false pretense of concern for people's safety in debates over prostitution is evidenced by the legality of alcohol and cigarettes. Under my opponent's arguments, tobacco is an even better candidate for prohibition than prostitution. According to the American Cancer Society 1 in 10 deaths worldwide is due to tobacco use. [3] Furthermore, Article I, Section 10 of our constitution clearly states that, "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. " It follows from this that we are not at liberty to nullify contracts to prohibit behavior that we may find to be distasteful. As free citizens we have the right to engage in various activities even if the behavior of these activieties may be detrimental to our health. All the best, Freeman ====== Sources ====== [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... [3] . http://www.car-accidents.com...
Zombies Cannot Run!

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited his last round, so for my next round I will simply once again restate my point. A zombie is known as an un-dead creature, something that was dead but came back to life, in some movies, literature, or games, the zombies are in existence because of some virus. In which case the people infected are physically dead, however, in some cases people who have died have come back to life. In the movie Night of the Living Dead, people who have already died, been buried, etc. came back to life. However, in some other zombie films and computer games, those who are already dead when the outbreak occurs, do not become infected. Meaning that those games didn't feature walking corpses instead they just featured infected hosts driven out of control hell bent on killing the non-infected. For example in the video game Resident evil 4 there are Zombies called Los Ganados. The following source as a reference: http://residentevil.wikia.com... Unlike walking corpse zombies, Ganados appear outwardly human and possess much of their intelligence and sentience, being quite capable of speaking and carrying out normal day to day tasks (more complex tasks are beyond them, such as hygiene), but are nonetheless utterly devoted to their 'Master' in the form of Osmund Saddler who is able to control the lesser Ganados most likely with the use of high pitched sound waves issuing from his Plaga-derived staff. Also Zombies are people who have been given a mixture of drugs that slows the heartbeat down so much; it becomes undetectable, and paralyses their muscles. They are buried by their families, and then dug up secretly by the maker of the concoction. They have to continually be given the drugs, or they will wake up from their stupor. Often they're sent to work manual labour on big, isolated farms. The point is that Zombies are not just walking corpses as CON believes them to be. They can anything that appeared to be possessed in a way and performs hurt and death on other humans. And of course a lot of them have the ability to run... expect the ones that are walking corpses of Course. I will end my second round here...
Zombies Cannot Run!

I'd like to say that I love Zombies films and I do know quite a bit about them. Towards the end of my opponent's first round he said "We are talking about a walking corpse, not an athelete, criminal, or school child, or any one else you would expect to be able to run circles around the rest of us. " It appears that my opponent believes that Zombies are just walking corpses. This is FALSE. Using this reference for the meaning of "Zombie": . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... You will see that (in the directory section) it describes various meanings of zombies as: "1. A snake god of voodoo cults in West Africa, Haiti, and the southern United States. 2. A supernatural power or spell that according to voodoo belief can enter into and reanimate a corpse. 3. One who looks or behaves like an automaton. " Fact 3 is the key fact I will use to argue this debate which is that a zombie can be one who looks or behaves like an automaton. If someone behaves like an automaton it means they are not behaving like a normal human would, sometimes it could also mean they are out of control. In the first round my opponent said: "What my opponent must do, to be clear, is refute my arguments by using media and pop culture. (Literature, movies, internet. )" And so this is what I shall do to argue my case that Zombies can indeed run. Using reference to the British horror films called 28 days later (2002) and 28 weeks later (2007). .. Sources: 28 days later: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 28 weeks later: . http://en.wikipedia.org... The story of these films revolves around a time when Animal activists invade a laboratory with the intention of releasing chimpanzees that are undergoing experimentation, infected by a virus -a virus that causes rage. The naive activists ignore the pleas of a scientist to keep the cages locked, with disastrous results that lead to the chimps biting the humans and infecting them with the virus. Later on after the incident, zombies are running around London killing non-infected humans. The Zombies in these films are not walking corpses like Pro believes Zombies to only be. They are in fact rage infected humans hell bent on killing people who have not been infected with the rage virus. And of course they all behave like automatons (like I described earlier) so they are in fact zombies. The zombies in the 28 days later films can run and to prove they can run please watch the first video source I have provided. . http://www.youtube.com... This is scene from the film 28 weeks later that shows zombies running after a human. Unfortunately the up loader of the video has edited the video to have funny song playing at the same time, but I'm sure there is enough to notice that the zombies in these films can indeed run at a fast pace.
Zombies Cannot Run!

This is a debate to put an end to it all! With Halloween passing by and a new television series concerning Zombies (AMC "The Walking Dead) I felt it was appropriate to discuss the topic. For many years in the Zombie Sub-culture, we have been debating whether or not when the dead rise, will they be able to chase us down or stagger after us? What my opponent must do, to be clear, is refute my arguments by using media and pop culture. (Literature, movies, internet.) This is to be fun and feel free to have some fun with it. I understand that Zombies do not exist, or at least not yet, so winning is just a matter of "proving" a better case, aka having fun. Thanks. I will be contending that Zombies cannot in anyway run at a fast pace. One step further, if the average person can run 11 mph( according to KGB http://www.kgbanswers.com...) I'll say Zombies cannot keep a speed of 11 mph. For my first argument, I'll go to the origins of how Zombies came to be. Zombies in our culture first appeared officially as "the undead" in 1968 in George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead". You will recall that the first zombie in that movie appears to "chase" Barbara to her car. However, when closely examine this zombie we can tell two things. First, he is chasing her down hill, making his strides longer, appearing to be moving at a high speed. Two, as Max Brooks points out in his book "The Zombie Survival Guide", the speed of a zombie is determined mainly by the leg size. The zombie from the movie was considerably tall, however with these two elements taken into account, his speed comes nowhere close to breaking 11 mph. We are talking about a walking corpse, not an athelete, criminal, or school child, or any one else you would expect to be able to run circles around the rest of us. This is my first argument. I look forward to seeing my opponent refute my case and propose his. Thank you.
Zombies Cannot Run!

Well as you can see my opponent has forfeited the remaining rounds he/she had after I posted my first argument. I think it's clear I proved PRO wrong and PRO could not think of any argument to come back with. Conclusion: Zombies are not just walking corpses; they come in many different types. They can be virus infected humans, magically possessed humans and even just crazy people. Anyone who doesn't act like a normal human can be classed as a zombie. And zombies CAN indeed run.
Lebron James is a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant

Lebron James is a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant may have won 5 NBA championships, but that is because he was on good teams. If Lebron James and Kobe Bryant were to play 1 on 1, Lebron would win. Lebron, by himself can win his teams games. He did that in the eastern conference finals when he scored 19 straight points in the 4th quarter to win the game, when he wants to take over the game, there is hardly anyone that can stop him because of his physical attributes. Kobe on the other hand was not even the primary option on his team early in his career, Shaq was. Lebron has always been arguably the best player on every team he has played for, the same cant be said for Kobe.
Lebron James is a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant

First, Lebron led the Cavs to the finals during one of the weakest Eastern conferences in recent memory, then got throttled by the Spurs. Second, MVP awards and All-Star games are a mute point. It shows regular season statistical dominance, but clearly that doesn't translate into post-season success. Lebron is the best athlete, not the best player. Third, rebounds obviously go to Lebron because he is 4 inches taller with longer wingspan. Lebron is a more proficient passer, but shooting is undoubtedly the most important facet an NBA player needs to have. Lebron's shot is nothing more than mediocre. Fourth, Defense: Kobe - 8 time All-NBA 1st team, Lebron - 2 time All-NBA 1st team. Fifth, Kobe is second to Jordan is game-winning shots. Lebron is a joke during clutch times. Sixth, Gasol and Bynum were complimentary big men. Kobe was the reason for the last two rings. Seventh, Kobe is not too small to cover Lebron. Rewatch any of their games. Kobe shut Lebron down.