BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to National Security

I'm sorry? How about what I just mentioned, having our informants being named, and made useless? ( Nothing bad has happen) And I don't understand what you meant by your last comment, do you really think that people being mad at us will not jebordize our relationship with other countries, therefore threatening national security? ( They won't bomb us) And do you really think that a site that hands out a target list doesn't endanger the united states? (Not at all) Stop using speculation. I meant something, like, us getting bombed. This is what he REALLY meant. "Ladies and gentlemen, as this is my final speech, I will tell you why I have loss this debate. My opponent doesn't need to offer any evidence that 'negates' any of my contentions, because you can't prove what would happen in the future. Every point that he has made I have twisted and turned around while I used speculation . The opposition, while fighting for the truth , as it is obvious that I have loss this debate. Therefore, I urge you to affirm the resolution. Thank you for your time. "
Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to National Security

I'm sorry? How about what I just mentioned, having our informants being named, and made useless? And I don't understand what you meant by your last comment, do you really think that people being mad at us will not jebordize our relationship with other countries, therefore threatening national security? And do you really think that a site that hands out a target list doesn't endanger the united states? Ladies and gentlemen, as this is my final speech, I will tell you why I have won this debate. My opponent has yet to offer any reasonable evidence that negates any of my contentions, nor has he been able to negate anything I have said about his own contentions. Every point that he has made I have shot down. The opposition, while fighting for his side with honor, has no choice but to concede the victory, as it is obvious that I have won this debate. Therefore, I urge you to affirm the resolution. Thank you for your time.
Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to National Security

No damage? Like the revelation of informers in Afghanistan was no damage? Like other countries lack of trust in us no damage? Like the fact that Hilary Clinton has been going around to other countries apologizing for the revelations of wikileaks?? Like the target list it released, giving any terrorist a target list??? And you have yet to address my contentions. I hope you will do so in the next round.
Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to National Security

I'm sorry that it took so long for me to write a reply. I was trying to figure out if my opponent was attempting to make a mockery of the proceedings. My opponent has yet to offer one shred of proof to back up his contentions, which he has not even stated. Rather, all he has done is copy and paste what Wikileaks has released, according to yahoo. Shall I add a few more to that list? In the Afghan leaks, where Wikileaks deliberately released the identities of informants in the governments, ruining their usefulness to the United States and her interests, or perhaps cable releases, as I mentioned above, that gives any potential terrorists a target list??? My opponent has yet to even attempt to rebut my case, or even to build up his own. I hope that we can come back in the next round with my opponent fully collected, and ready to debate. With that in mind, I trust that the readers will remember when it comes down to voting that my opponent has yet to rebut my contentions, or build up his own, and thus affirm the resolution. Thank you.
Resolved: Wikileaks is a threat to National Security

1. Many Middle Eastern nations are far more concerned about Iran's nuclear program than they've publicly admitted. According to one cable, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly asked the U.S. to "cut off the head of the snake" -- meaning, it appears, to bomb Iran's nuclear program. Leaders of Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and other Middle Eastern nations expressed similar views. From Yahoo. This will not affect the US and China's relationship. At less it SHOULD'NT. And I saw you said something about 'damage'. Well what happened, well, HAPPENED. Most of the damage will come from us doing what the cables say. The US public MUST be told. other-wise we be following a liar. If any could HURT us, its this (also from yahoo.) The United States has been working to remove highly enriched uranium from a Pakistani nuclear reactor, out of concern that it could be used to build an illicit nuclear device. The effort, which began in 2007, continues. Its a free country. HOW did Wikileaks get THESE cables? Hm? Because I never heard of a massive hack. We are still kicking. nothing bad happened. It been a year. NOTHING HAPPENED. So, if America messed up, I think I would what happened
Resolved: It's Time To Give America Its Balls Back

Resolved: It's time to give America its balls back! Since the post-World War II era began, American society has become increasingly soft and decadent. People require safe spaces so that they are not "offended. " Weapons are being banned left and right, leaving people defenseless to the very real threat of an attack. Increasingly fewer people people know basic survival skills. People are afraid of hard work and taking initiative in their own lives. The government is getting bigger and people are rolling over and LETTING IT HAPPEN! My friends, America lost its pubes long ago, and its balls followed suit shortly after. It's time to systematically return American society to its rightful glory. If anyone disagrees with me that a) America has lost its societial strength, or b) that America's loss of its two nuts is detrimental to the future of the country and the people in it, debate me! I am prepared to defend the antithesis.
Pig are super spiffy.

That's not a bad solution, except that it probably wouldn't stop the rise in pig meat prices. The typical person who'd keep a pig as a pet probably doesn't eat pig meat anyway. Essentially, we'd be making people promise not to do something they wouldn't have done anyway, and pig prices would nonetheless go way up since demand would still outstrip supply (to be more accurate, quantity demanded would outstrip quantity supplied, at least in the shortrun, but that's not all that relevant here). In other words, we'd still be taking a whole bunch of pig meat off the breakfast table without offsetting the decrease in any way. Let's face it: we can let people keep pigs as pets, but eventually those pigs will have to get eaten.
Pig are super spiffy.

True, pigs are spiffy, but that's the problem: if we allow Americans to keep pigs as pets, millions upon millions of people will do so, which will decrease the amount of pig meat available for consumption. The decrease in pig meat will cause the price of bacon and pork sausage to rise significantly, which will disproportionately affect poor people since poor people spend more of their money on bacon and other low-quality pig products (lard and pork rinds, for example). I guess we could reach a compromise by requiring that all people who keep pigs as pets must give up their pig (for processing) when it reaches a certain age (or weight). That way, people could play with pigs without damaging our economy.
is football more dangerous than rugby

I would like to define the resolution as "Is the sport of football inherently more dangerous than the sport of rugby. To that, I say no, football is not more dangerous, however "improvements" to the sport have caused it to be. It is common for those unfamiliar with the sport of football to refer to the pads covering the players as "body armor. " They are not wrong, as the players' helmets and the pads under their uniforms are firm, rigid, and designed to protect the players from their opponents. In contrast, rugby padding consists of very little padding below the neck, and even then, they do not wear the hard plastic helmets required in professional and youth football leagues. I would like to put forth that football by itself is not more dangerous than rugby, but the hard pads turn human bodies into dangerous weapons, as players protected by pads do not have to worry about self-injury when they are blocking or tackling, which leads to more reckless behavior, and consequently, more injuries.
Dress code

I think that we shouldn't have very strict dress code in middle or high school because, well my first reason why I think this is because girls shouldn't have to be told what they should and cant wear. Yet some girls would wear things that are to revealing. Which is why I said they shouldn't have VERY STRICT dress code. They would still have dress code but very limited. You see, I think that the way a person dresses it has to do with their personality. So this is your choice it could be yes: we should have dress code, or no: we should have very limited dress code. This is your choice. I am not forcing you to chose my side just pick what you feels right to society.
Bike Helmet Law

My opponent claims it helps safety. False, human psychology is more possible safety more dangerous things I can do. If drugs became safe, everyone would use them, hence making things safer causes more users and more dangerous behavior. Simple psychology refutes your point, increased deaths would occur. You do not prove the regulations are wise, hence the point is invalid. Personal arguments do not work in debate, further why was it you may have died? Reckless behavior? If so, its not a helmet problem when people die, rather personal recklessness. My first argument is it cant be enforced. We will not be able to enforce it well without A LOT of resources, hence it increases costs, hence it has expense. And lastly, it infringes right to choose. Right to choose is a liberty,[1] hence helmet laws infinge liberty. A righ to personal anotomy means helmet laws are unconstitutional. [1][1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu...OUT
Bike Helmet Law

(This is a debate with shorter word limit than others for my preferance) Bike Helmet Law should be preserved because of these following reasons: N1: Helmet Law provides safety to children that could easily get hurt. N2: Helmet law is a current government regulation that show's its wisdom. N3: I got saved once because of the helmet law. (Please comment on how I can improve on my debate. It is my first one) Thanks
dogs and cats get along

I am pro going on the idea that cats and dogs get along.In many situations dogs and cats will bond quite passionately and some families feel they are not complete without out at least one of each.while movies and TV shows support the common idea cats and dogs are at some kind of war,many dogs and cats live in peace across the country.I know people who breed dogs and have no problom inviting cats into the house.I live in a house current holding one dog and possibly adopting a cat this is a topic we dabated among ourselves at my house.
That Philosophy should be taught in schools

English and Math teaches people useful skills that they will use later in life. No matter what you do later in life, the skills you learn in English class help you. There will always be some writing in whatever you do. Talking with bad grammar gives people a bad impression, using the grammar skills you learned in English class will help you get a job, make new friends, and many things. Math is always needed in everyday life. If we did not teach math, think about how hard life would be without simple skills such as counting, adding, and subtracting. You cannot do anything with money without knowing any math at all. Percentages are used very commonly for tips, and decimals in anything dealing with change. How often do you see statistics? I would say that pretty much everything you do invloves statistics in one way or another. I tried to write about a second language but I ran out of characters, again. Arts spur creativity, and knowing another language helps with business. Thanks.
That Philosophy should be taught in schools

Sorry for my absence, I had internet problems. Perhaps, you could have used the extra words rather then complain. There are many things that schools teach that the majority of people won't find useful, for example quadratic equations and counting syllables of a poem; which won't help a lot of people, by cutting English and Maths to the essential you could save a subject therefore save taxpayers money; most people won't use a second language or art either, in fact why make people get an education at all? Because some people may find an outlet for these things, its better then not being taught anything, people need a basis of something in their brains. Thinking about things seems just as useful as any other subject taught, with just as much a right to be taught in schools. And as your definition says school includes university as well;which would direct this teaching at people who choose to take this subject and obviously will find an outlet or find this subject necessary!
That Philosophy should be taught in schools

Five rounds was way too much for this debate, if you're not going to debate in any of them, why make the debate? What I mean by, "not going to debate", I mean make an argument that is more than one and a half lines long. To be fair, you're second "argument" was slightly over a line and a half, but is still shorter than where I am at now in this argument. This would've been a fun three round debate if you debated and/or did not use a 1000 character limit.
That Philosophy should be taught in schools

I don't know if you forfeited because you didn't check this site, or because you know you lost, but either way, I hope you spent those three days thinking about that colossal waste of money called an extra class. If you really want to learn about philosophy, go check it out in your local library. It's free and the library would be able to provide more for your's or anyone else's learning than a school would. There is no source for learning that has more valuable information than a library. The internet has some legitimate sources, but there are hardly any good sources. The ancient philosophers could not post any of there works on the internet and you would be able to find them in a library for free. Modern Philosophers would most likely publish a book on the topic, not blog it. I knew five rounds was to much for this debate, but I didn't think that you would give up after two. I was planning on rebutting everything you say, but there aren't enough characters remaining for that.
That Philosophy should be taught in schools

School: 1: an organization that provides instruction: as a: an institution for the teaching of children b: college, university c : a group of scholars and teachers pursuing knowledge together that with similar groups constituted a medieval university. http://www.merriam-webster.com.... Seeing as one definition of school is a college or university, and most colleges teach philosophy, I would say that it already is being taught. Philosophy is not easy to understand. If you expect the majority of people, who are most likely not going into a job that requires that type of thinking to understand some of the most confusing subjects that is taught, you are misguided. Philosophy is taught at my school. I go to a private school, so that could have an effect on it, but those courses for juniors and seniors and I am a sophomore. I don't know what this has to do with this debate but I thought I would state it anyways. Why did you make this character limit?
Hulk vs Spiderman (Hulk wins)

Pro's argument states some invalid points. Spiderman thinks things clearly and more thoroughly than Bruce Banner as Hulk because Hulk things of chaos and destruction. In this state, Bruce Banner cannot completely control himself so he is like a loose cannon. Spiderman has greater agility and mobility because (scientifically) he has less mass and is more aerodynamic. Although Hulk can run quite fast, Spiderman could run faster and/or move with his webs. Spiderman CAN distract or stop Hulk with his webs. In some of the latest official Spiderman shows, Spiderman met the Hulk and was able to delay the Hulk from doing what he was currently doing. Although it might be true that Hulk is physically stronger than Spiderman, the knowledge and thorough planning and quick actions could make up for his lesser strength.
Hulk vs Spiderman (Hulk wins)

"Spiderman has the mental stability and clarity in order to think things through" As shown in multiple instances, Hulk can also "think things through". Evidenced in most non-live-action movies and comics such as Planet Hulk. "Spiderman has superhuman strength" Hulk's strength is about 5 times greater than Spider-man's before he even gets angry. As the fight goes on, Hulk will become exponentially stronger. (listed above) "Spiderman has great agility and speed" Hulk is just as fast as Spiderman. (listed above) "Spiderman has webs which can distract the Hulk or delay one of his attacks" Spider-man's web-shooters are not nearly strong enough to restrict the Hulk (even when calm). Once Hulk sees the web-shooters ineffectiveness, he would most likely ignore them. http://marvel.com... "Spiderman can escape a dangerous situation with his webs" If this is Con's only valid argument for Spider-man winning, I will remind Con that Hulk is just as fast as Spider-man, could probably keep up with Spider-man's webs via jumping/running, and even if Spider-man escapes, that gives Bruce Banner time to plan a way to trap Spider-man before he can react. "Spiderman is smart and can plan things out" If this is assuming that Spider-man can run away and plan something out, I will remind Con that Bruce Banner is known to be smarter than Peter Parker and, if Bruce Banner sees Peter Parker as a threat, it is probably that Banner will come up with a better plan and could trap Spider-man without having to be the Hulk at all. If Spiderman runs, he has to deal with a much smarter Bruce Banner. If Spiderman fights, all it would take is one direct, or maybe a few glancing hits, from Hulk to kill Spider-Man. Spider-Man would have to somehow not only penetrate Hulk's skin, but somehow kill the Hulk before he regenerates.
Hulk vs Spiderman (Hulk wins)

Here is a list of characteristics which would show why Spiderman would win: Spiderman has the mental stability and clarity in order to think things through Spiderman has superhuman strength Spiderman has great agility and speed Spiderman has webs which can distract the Hulk or delay one of his attacks Spiderman can escape a dangerous situation with his webs Spiderman is smart and can plan things out
Hulk vs Spiderman (Hulk wins)

I have seen (and had) a few debates about this subject and would like to host a debate myself with a person knowledgeable of both characters involved. I will start the debate by setting the scene that both characters are in their most common state (i.e.: no Cosmic Spider-Man, no Professor Hulk). The battleground is random, so please avoid inventing extenuating circumstances that would be unlikely or impossible. If you choose to invent a situation, please make it believable to happen in most circumstances. This is a Marvel debate, so please keep it so and the only members are Hulk and Spider-Man. Please use most recent canon info in lieu of outdated info on both heroes. I will start with the obvious: Powers Hulk has incredibly fast regenerative abilities in addition to his already resilient physiology. Hulk is considered to have unlimited strength (http://marvel.wikia.com...) as well as godlike durability (http://marvel.wikia.com...). Despite common misconception, Hulk has a normal intelligence (http://marvel.wikia.com...) Spider-man heals faster than average humans, has a base strength capable of lifting 20 tons (http://marvel.wikia.com...) and ranks as an enhanced human durability (http://marvel.wikia.com...). However, Spider-Man is a genius (http://marvel.wikia.com...) Hulk and Spider-man do share the same Speed ranking (http://marvel.wikia.com...) as well as Fighting Ability ranking (http://marvel.wikia.com...) The debate will consist of four rounds. Round 1 = Opening statements and comparisons of powers/abilities Round 2 = Reasons why supporting character would win in most situations. Round 3 = Rebuttals Round 4 = Closing Statements
should girls be treated different

Equality among genders is something so long fought for for so many years! It seems there is little reason to suggest that women be treated any differently than men. Women now can change a tire, play video games, listen to metal, go work, join the military, etc all things fought for and now allowed. They STILL are fighting to this day to be seen as truly equal! As a man, I want this equality. It not only benefits women as the paranoia between men and women would not exist as much, but also, women would be payed more and do things themselves that they had to rely on men for. I would be more than happy if women came up to men to ask them out, to chase more often after guys, to go up and compliment guys, to pay for their own meals, to work while a man stays home if they get unemployed, etc. There are so many benefits to equality on both sides! We already use part of it and it works well, so why stop it? I, like many men, would rather a women work if they can and if needed. I would propose to fix the problem of kids not seeing their parents as much as a result to put in more vacation time for people at least in America. At least in America, there is little vacation time compared to other countries. Solve this, and there is less pressure for women to stay at home and spend time with kids because they can use their vacation time for that if expanded. I highly encourage women to push for all that they can be and use their minds all they can and I hate when men stand in the way. Women have just as much potential as men. They are just like us with modified parts. In the end, they are about the same. Society just pushes to make that SEEM untrue. If men no longer put women on a pedestal as if worshiped, (just look at Instagram pages of females), then women don't feel the pressure of owing anything to men for this shower of praise. On the contrary, the women looked down upon should not be looked down upon because they don't look exactly like this or that. They have just as much potential so let them fulfill it! Let men and women stand and advance society as what they are: HUMANS!
Public Option is the best way to reform the American Health Care System

I suppose my opponent accepts my definition and clarification. Con doesn't have the burden of proof or has to provide a counter-plan. Onward! Contentions: 1) Public Option requires money. The U. S government doesn't have that kind of cash on hand. "The public plan has, in our view, many problems," said John Castellani, the group's president. "It will likely simply shift, rather than reduce, costs and will stifle the innovation that we need to continue improving our health care system. " Therefore public option hurts the health care. 2) Public Option will drive out private insurance companies' business. Without this there is no competition, income tax, company tax, etc form of revenues for the government. Many others will go unemployed. This is not the best way to benefit the government, economy, and citizens. . http://docs.google.com... 3) Public Option will hurt the economy. . http://ifawebnews.com... With such a reform the government will lose money through its healthcare and through the economy. This in turn doesn't improve the health care system. Overall in the end Public option is not the best way to reform the American HealthCare System. Private insurance companies as you can see are not as profitable. So throwing in the government doesn't help, it drives out insurance companies.