BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: George W. Bush was a bad president

I look foward to reading why you think he was good, and reading your rebuttles. 1: Invaded Iraq to get rid of WMDs which didn’t exist and it was a illegal war. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...http://www.monitor.net...2. Used torture to interrogate prisoners despite evidence that says information acquired through unreliable. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.amnestyusa.org...3. Failed to act on warning signs of the September, 11th attacks. . http://edition.cnn.com...4. Lied to the American people that Saddam Hussein was working with Al-Qaeda. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. Little or no policy changes on our changing climate. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...6. Passed the Military Commissions Act, which removes the right to Habeus Corpus, one of the most fundamental safe guards against tyrannical governments. . http://en.wikipedia.org...7. Pushed for elections in Palestine that lead to a Hamas victory, and then tried tooverthrow them. . http://www.washingtonpost.com...http://www.guardian.co.uk...8. Pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missle Treaty. http://archives.cnn.com...Turn.
This house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

Looks like I forfeited most rounds in this debate. Oh well. You can take off a point against me for Conduct! Nevertheless, when voting for Convincing Arguments, I urge you to keep in mind which side gave the better arguments. Let me begin by noting that most of my opponent's arguments apply only to social networking sites. We are not debating merely about social networking sites, but about the internet in general! Thus, most of my arguments abouts the internet's harms go unrebutted: (a) Identity theft: identity theft can make you lose your bank balance. It does not need to occur through social networking sites, but can happen even through email or false web sites. (b) Spyware: While downloading manga or some new PDF reader (and not just social networking sites), your computer can fall prey to malicious spyware. It is well known that spyware can compromise your privacy. (c) Cookies: Yes, cookies can be cleared. But many people fail to clear their cookies regularly. Most people do not use proxy servers. Con's argument presumes a fictional reality. Thus, uncleared cookies do threaten privacy. (d) Durability of info online: Con respond that when people sign up on networking sites, they agree to let their privacy be threatened. So in essence, Con agree that the internet threatens people's privacy! I concede my opponent's argument that GoogleMaps is not especially threatening to privacy. I also concede that the benefits of the internet outweigh its harms. HOWEVER, if you look at the outset of this debate, I argued that my burden was not to prove that the internet is overall harmful; my burden was to show that it threatens privacy. I have done so.
This house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

Thank you trendem for taking part in the debate. With such a technologically advanced system today our privacy is not threatened by the internet, as we mainly have to agree to terms and conditions and if you accept it it means that you acknowledge the risks and dont mind. My opponent may state that perosnal details have been lost via the internet however, this occured when details where on paper. Overall, on google maps they sensor number plates and you can go to see places that you might go to live/ go on holiday. Therefore i conclude that the positives on the internet out way the negatives. And if people are concerned maybe they shouldnt be using the internet and there are ways in our society to keep our details hidden from people. Vote for con! =]!
This house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

Ourprivacy can be protected whilst online by accepting only friends and hence you can not have access to profiles as they are set on private which is already done if you are under 16 on Social Networking sites. Also using a proxy server so your Ip can not be decoded to get passwords, bank details etc etc. We are told about this when signing up to a facebook site so obviously you are signing up to having your privacy invaded which is part of the terms and conditions and whenever you do something ie. Upload photos you have to agree to terms and conditions and have to reconfirm and if it is a picture that people dont think is appropriate they can report it and hence the social netwroking site will take responsibility for it. With cookies alike what many people do you can clear them so hence is safe. With Google maps, you see blured images the same as if you were going down a street and has more benefits as when you want to go on holiday you can search where you will be staying, the area etc. Accessibility and durability- If you made a site you have agreed for people to see it and if people dont want employees to see it dont add them and set your pages to private.
This house believes people's privacy is threatened by current trends is Internet media

Definitions: This House: me Believes: holds to be true privacy: the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively. [1] threatened: put in danger current trends: contemporary tendencies or fads Internet media: the World Wide Web To clarify, I will NOT be arguing that the internet is harmful or should be removed. I recognize that the internet has several beneficial aspects and is overall a force for good. I will merely argue that the internet jeopardizes our privacy. 1) Identity theft. Over 500,000 Americans suffer each year from Identity theft. [2] You might respond to some email that seems to be from your bank, asking for some details... and the next thing you know the money in your bank account has mysteriously disappeared! 2) Spyware Some innocuous screensaver download might implant malevolent spyware in your computer. In its milder form, this spyware will send data about your browsing habits to web marketers so they can bombard you with spam. If its more evil, then the spyware could disable your computer and spread even further through your contact lists. 3) Cookies Cookies are like your shopping lists. Your cookies can reveal your name, your e-mail address, your location, and which sites you have visited. Sites that you visit can capture your cookies. Do you really want the hentai site owner to know where you live? 4) Accessibility and durability of information online That site that you made only for your close friends and that contains many inappropriate sexual innuendos can be found by your future employer and serve to prevent you from getting a job. I remember a news article that said many employers like to conduct google searches on their prospective employees before hiring them. Furthermore, whatever you post online will outlive you, and I'm not sure if I want my grandchildren to know what I was up to in my teens. SOURCES: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://agbionews.sdstate.edu...
Rap Battle

yo check round mutha f****n one two three I love you and you mean everything to me I take back what I said and I wish that we could be Friends instead of mutha f****n enemees BWA HA HA HA HAA You didn't fall for that sh*t did you? Your rhymes are wack and your slating is due This is a rap battle not a a picnic meet and greet So hear the barrage of boos aimed at you - your well and truly beat I'll be friendly and give some friendly advice You should give up rapping before you pay the price And make a fool of yourself for being too nice This is a rap battle between two men not two mice You have been overrated in many a debate You not so hard to beat unless your opponent is eight No one knows me here yet 2000 fans know me elsewhere How many people know you on this website? I don't care Cause life aint about success you had on this website incase your unaware You try to prove your popularity but I'll still win this battle fair and square so lets challenge in the future on a topic with which your familiar I will be ready to debate on any topic in particular I will challenge you directly and will word my way to victory For you to win and beat me would be highly unlikely your rapping sucks So good luck In round 3 You'll be cast off as muck
Rap Battle

This goes to Krissy Why did you insult me? What did I do to you? For you to attack me out of the blue? Would you be so kind To adopt a different state of mind And be more friendly? Your argument is baseless Your caseless Your faceless You've been on here For an entire year Yet no one knows ye But everyone knows me I'm overated? You're dated. You've been here An entire year And you've never debated As you can see I have refuted the arguments of Krissy If he really wants to challenge me He'd debate me directly.
Rap Battle

This goes to that1user its time to be annihilated You'll end up the loser cause you are the ill- fated Your rap in round 2 will be useless and slated Your left in the dark - mind is blank - pupils dilated You've got nothing on me, you aint s**t your overrated My rhymes are sic, its time you sh*t a brick When you realise your about to take a lot of stick Whats with the pic? You aint a hot chic You aint Princess Peach but a parasitic leech Practise what you preach so lay off of the rapping Your so out of reach so go back to what you do best - fapping
Transgender bathrooms

From round1: "I believe they should; they would otherwise feel uncomfortable." We return to the large gaping hole of there being a double standard in your reasoning that you do not really address. This is conceded. And you don't explain very well what not making an issue of allowing the transgendered community a choice in bathrooms has to do with anything. Not put ideas in people's heads? What ideas? The fact remains that peeps can fake and be creeps. Alternative: Support mixed bathrooms.
Transgender bathrooms

I agree with you on the fact that some people may pretend to be transgender, but this is why the issue shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. If no one saw an issue of transgender people using the bathroom of their preference, this wouldn't put any ideas in other people's heads. At the end of the day, whether a transgender woman chooses to use the women's bathroom isn't any of our business. It becomes someone's business if it is specifically hurting them. I rest my case.
Transgender bathrooms

That is assuming all transgender people manage to look exactly like what they want to become. No true. This does not look like a woman to me: In the same way that a transgender person would be uncomfortable being in a bathroom of people opposite to the gender they identify with, a cis-gender person would also be uncomfortable with being in a bathroom with a person who is clearly of the opposite gender. No double standards. What's to stop a cis-person from faking transgenderism? Unsafe. I negate.
Transgender bathrooms

So if I'm reading your argument correctly, you think the transgendered should have be able to decide which bathroom they go to because to not allow them to do so would make them feel uncomfortable. Think however, in another line of thought. If a transgendered person feels uncomfortable being in the bathroom with people who they view as being of the opposite sex, then wouldn't you expect a non-transgendered person to feel the same? Whose preference do we prioritize and why?
3 divided by 0 equals 3 - Debate Two

it doesn't equal 3 in an equation, but as I say this, 3 divided by 0 is 3, is true because that's the only way to say it the thing about equations are they are very rigid, but saying 3 divided by 0 is 3, I could be saying 3 divided by 0 is 3 because the equation doesn't go through, would fit, as its language not math, its an explanation not an equation 3/0(3) should be the headline and don't forget, you wrote that headline when challenging me to this debate :)
3 divided by 0 equals 3 - Debate Two

you are dividing the money into groups, so that would be 50.000 divided into 2 groups. but lets say you have both these pots of 25.000, are you sharing them with anyone? not by that equation 1 tree divided by itself is 1 tree, 1 tree divided by nothing is 1 tree, its the equivalent of saying 1 tree not divided is 1 tree, or don't divide that 1 tree, same, it doesn't disappear and its not undefined dividing with 1 is impossible, if you divide the 50.000 into 1 group, how many times have you divided it? and did you lose all your money by not dividing them? no you would have 4 sodas in your example, 3 on the table and 1 in your hand possibly "If it is impossible to divide by zero, then why would 3/0=3, as Pro says?" the thing I claim is, 3/0 does not equal 3, because the equation dosnt go through, if it did, something would become nothing and then go back to being something, which is literally impossible in reality, so the equation is not true, it can not be, therefore 3/0, is just 3, or 3/0(3) its the same with this, 1+0 does not equal 1, it simply is 1, and nothing happens, therfore 1+0 just means this 1, or 1+0(1) to reveal that it cant happen
3 divided by 0 equals 3 - Debate Two

"im not saying 3/1=3 is not an equation but its a false equation as it cant happen, it can not equal anything because the action of dividing cant happen"This is the case with 3/0, not 3/1. 3/1 is still a legitimate equation that is able to happen. "1 person can not share anything in the world with only himself"Some division problems actually require the person themselves to divide. If I have 50,000 dollars (which I don't...) and I split it equally into two different categories, save and spend, wouldn't I be dividing with myself?All of the money is still there, just in different categories.50,000 (dollars) / (divided into) 2 (categories) = 25,000 dollars per category. I would still have the money but it would be split into different categories.If there were 0 categories to divide it into, I still have the money, I never said I didn't. They just simply can't be divided.And to answer your questions in the comments:"hmm, its like this, i have 2 pencils on my desk, and now i add 1, so i have 3, now i take the tree and divide them no times, and now i add 1 more pencil, how many pencils do i have on my desk?"In return let me ask you a question:If I had three sodas, put them out in front of zero people, and asked them to divide it amongst themselves, and walk away. A while later, I return with another soda. How many sodas would there be?I did no division. It is impossible to divide with zero. As such, no division took place and the sodas are still there. No destruction, just no division. I could not divide by zero as there was no one to divide it between. So if I add a soda, I would have four.If it is impossible to divide by zero, then why would 3/0=3, as Pro says?Awaiting R4's arguments.
3 divided by 0 equals 3 - Debate Two

To refute, 3/1=3 is an actual equation. You are doing 3 (sodas) / (divided amongst) 1 (1 person) and you get 3. As well, opponent states it is impossible to divide with 0. Isn't he going against his original argument? If it is impossible to divide by zero how do I get three? If I put three sodas on the table, where one friend was, and said "Divide these amongst yourselves" and left, the one friend would get all three sodas. Hence, 3/1=3. However, as I stated in my original argument, if I put three sodas on the table where zero people are, then say "Divide these amongst yourselves" and left, nobody would get any sodas. There are no people there that can divide them! Therefore 3/0 = undefined, as it is impossible.
3 divided by 0 equals 3 - Debate Two

i have said this many times m8, you can not divide with 0 and 1 its impossible to share 3 sodas with yourself, yet 3/1=3 why? 3/1=3 is a false equation, but 3 is a true answer this is the true equation as it can only happen in reality, 3/1(3), like saying don't divide these sodas on the table, nothing happens
3 divided by 0 equals 3 - Debate Two

Pro fails to follow the rules I have set in place, and instead heads straight to his argument. Nonetheless I shall refute it, and note that any future failure to comply in the rules set results in a forfeiture by Pro. Imagine this: you have 10 sodas. You bring those sodas over to a table where your five friends sit. You say "OK, divide these amongst yourselves." Then you walk away. Each person would take two sodas. 10 (sodas) / 5 (people) = 2 (sodas per person). Now, you have 10 sodas. You bring those 10 sodas over to a table where zero friends sit. You say "OK, divide these amongst yourselves." Then you walk away. How is it possible that I can divide 10 sodas amongst zero people and get ten? 10 (sodas) / 0 (people) = undefined (no sodas can be given out as it is impossible). The sodas don't disappear and the sodas aren't destroyed. They still sit there on the table. But you have to realize the answer to a division problem is how many of x item each person gets. If 0 people are there, how can they get 10 sodas? As well, type 10/0 into a calculator. If it gives 10 you're right. If it gives any other answer I am right. If you confidently believe after all this 10/0 = 10, then please refute. I'm interesting in hearing your arguments. Best of luck in round two. Remember this is opening arguments, no rebuttals.
3 divided by 0 equals 3 - Debate Two

I wish to debate spex on this topic once more (only once), as he still seems unconvinced about this. By agreeing to the debate you agree to the following:72 hours to argue, 8,000 characters max per argument. Any offensive content, including, but not limited to, swearing, derogatory language, and insulting will result in a forfeiture of the debate by the offender. If you wish to state the definition, feel free, but only use sources to define and not your own words. Examples of sources include searching on Google "_______ definition", dictionary. com, and merriam-webster. com. Cite all definitions. R1: Pro's acceptance statement. (i. e. at least an "I accept this debate", and any questions regarding rules set up that may need to be changed). R2: Opening arguments (no rebuttals). R3: Rebuttals. R4: Second round of rebuttals. R5: Conclusion from both sides. Failure to comply to the rules results in a forfeiture of the debate. BoP is on Pro.
Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

The resolution is as stated below:Resolved: Targeted Killing is a morally permissible foreign policy toolLD-style debates. All forms of LD cases are acceptable.Round format will go as thus.Round One: Pro posts caseRound Two: Con posts case and refutes, pro defends and refutesRound Three: Con refutes and defends. Pro refutes and defends. No new arguments in this round.With that in mind, I await my opponent.
That the laws and minset of Affirmative Action are unjust

•Affirmative action is racist, and unjust oBy singling out people based on the color of their skin, even if it for the supposed betterment of them, we are following the racist tendencies of the past •Affirmative Action breaks the foundations of the civil rights movement, and all that it stood for. oThe civil rights movement followed the idea of equality for all. Any racist policies, even those that grant special privileges to certain races, would be against their theories •People cannot control their race, and thus Affirmative Action gives one person an advantage over another, with a factor that NOBODY can control. •The job of the government is not to force the private market to determine the workers that will be under it. The applicants should be chosen based on their qualifications and skills, not the color of their skin, or the fact that they are women. •Equality of opportunity is an essential factor in our nation. To strip that away in a method like affirmative action is to destroy the American dream. • Colleges are always pushing to be more diverse, which isn't a bad thing, unless they use affirmative action to give one person a spot that another, more qualified person should have had based on their ethnicity. •The Supreme Court has been very wary of the consequences of affirmative action. oIn Bakke v. univ. of California, the Supreme Court ruled against the ideas of quotas, but the idea still stands, it must be ended. •Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four children will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the quality of their character." Let us now judge people on the quality of their character.
The Problem of Evil does not Disprove a Benevolent God

Expanded ResolutionI will argue that the Argument from Evil does not render it logically impossible for a benevolent God to exist in our world, in which evil is obviously observed.Burden of ProofThe BoP shall rest on myself (Pro), and I shall have to demonstrate how a benevolent God can logically co-exist with the evil that is observed in our world. In order for my opponent (Con) to win, my arguments must be refuted.The Problem of Evil [1]1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent*.2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.4. If God is benevolent*, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.5. Evil exists.6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. *Note: I have replaced the original term, "morally perfect", with "benevolent", since I believe that the former concept is incoherent. This should have no impact on this debate.DefinitionsGod : The omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent (loving and protective), transcendental creator of our universe and reality. For the purposes of this debate, the listed traits shall be considered coherent.Evil : This definition can be left loose, and can be "profoundly immoral and malevolent" [2] or it can pertain to Epicurean Evil [3] (which is essentially any degree of physical or mental suffering), or any other suitable definition so long as the proposed definition has some backing.Debate StructureRound #1 shall be for acceptance only. The remainder of the debate shall not be committed to any specific structure.Sources[1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Classic Robert Gauntlet Tournament: The current tax system should be replaced by the fair tax.

By current tax system, I'm referring to the federal tax system currently used by the United States government. Explanation of the Fair Tax 1. The Fair Tax is a consumption tax at the point of sale for 23% of every dollar spent. It's effectively a 30% sales tax. For the first year. 2. The tax will replace income tax, social security, corporate taxes, capital gains tax, Medicare tax, payroll tax, gift taxes and estate tax. 3. The tax would be on all new goods and services. Purchases from thrift shops, used book stores, used car dealers etc. wouldn't be taxed. Things owned before the fair tax took effect would not be taxed. 4. After the first year the tax rate would be adjusted automatically using a formula that uses the previous fiscal year's federal receipts. 5. A tax rebate will be sent out monthly for the amount a family of that size would spend at the poverty level. This tax rebate is referred to as a prebate. It would be sent out in 12 monthly installments. Here is a link to the chart with the prebate amounts. http://www.debate.org... Taken from http://www.fairtax.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org...