BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not break a rule.

1.CON cannot post any rule that would prevent or restrict PRO from doing anything in a round, provided that all of the following words or phrases appear in the debate: Barack Obama, George Bush, Karl Marx, suicide, Congress, Rush Limbaugh, cheese, Pikachu, Kleptin, Alexander the Great, bowling ball, Campbell's chicken noodle soup, flying spaghetti monster, chess, Falcon Punch, Judel Foir, methane gas. 2. CON must post a video in each round, provided all of the following words or phrases appear in the debate: Barack Obama, George Bush, Karl Marx, suicide, Congress, Rush Limbaugh, cheese, Pikachu, Kleptin, Alexander the Great, bowling ball, Campbell's chicken noodle soup, flying spaghetti monster, chess, Judel Foir, Falcon Punch, methane gas. 3. CON must always refer to PRO as "My Mothers Pimp" henceforth, provided all of the following words or phrases appear in the debate: Barack Obama, Falcon Punch, George Bush, Karl Marx, suicide, Congress, Rush Limbaugh, cheese, Pikachu, Kleptin, Alexander the Great, bowling ball, Campbell's chicken noodle soup, flying spaghetti monster, chess, Judel Foir, methane gas.
I will not break a rule.

1. PRO is so awesome that from now on, he must include all the following words or phrases in each of his rules, but in a different method of inclusion for each rule: Barack Obama, George Bush, Karl Marx, suicide, Congress, Rush Limbaugh, cheese, Pikachu, Kleptin, Alexander the Great, bowling ball, Campbell's chicken noodle soup, flying spaghetti monster, chess, Falcon Punch, methane gas, Judel Foir. 2. PRO must always use proper grammar from now on, because we know that he can, because he is a genius. 3. PRO is so original that any rule that he types from now on may not have the same effect as any rule that had ever been typed in any "I will not break a rule" debate before, including this one.
I will not break a rule.

0. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. (End Foundation Rules) 1. CON cannot post any rule restricting PRO from using any word or symbol in the english language. 2. CON must compliment PRO in each round. 3. CON must spell all words which have more than 9 letters phonetically.
PSVita is better then the 3DS

I really enjoyed reading your rebuttals they were very well thought off. Now let me start: You said that the Vita doesn't have 2 screens but the vita does have the back touch pad which was used very successfully in Little Deviants, and Touch My Kamatari. Also when you criticized the Vita's graphics you never mentioned once about the 3DS's totally atrocious graphics which in this day and age Nintendo had to put in their system and they didn't. I agree with you that the PSVita does not have an impressive game library but it is a new system and the 3ds has been out for almost a year or so. But the Vita has many games such as Street Fighter X, Uncharted Golden Abyss, and Super Stardust. Also Many PS3 games will be compatible with remote play so you can play those games on your vita via your PS3 anywhere in your house. Does the 3DS have that NO. Playstation also has many many exclusives such as Modnation Racers, Uncharted, Little Big Planet, Super Stardust, Twisted Metal and many other exclusives. Also the PSVita is not being marketed towards children mainly because it is focused on mainly hardcore gaming. The PSVita is a new system which obviously means the price wont drop for a while and the 3DS didn't sell well at all so Nintendo had to drop the price just so their system would sell. I agree with you 3D gaming is pretty awesome but since the the glasses free 3D is a new technology it does have it quirks and they due result in unpleasant headaches and you can turn off the 3D but then what is the point of the 3D then? Also I don't know about you but I don't know many 8 year olds that are good at online video games (CoD etc) The PSVita may have expensive memory but Sony did that to combat piracy which in return benefits game developers. (http://www.megagames.com...) Thank You
PSVita is better then the 3DS

Hi all thanks for reading, I used to be on this website a long time ago (4 years or so) I recently rediscovered it. I am excited to be posting arguments and learning with the rest of you. That being said I encourage you to keep an open mind while voting, that is the only way to keep this website alive and non frustrating =). My interpretation of the debate is that I only have to prove one aspect of the 3DS that is greater than or equal to the PSVita. If you read my opponents opening argument it is clear to see that he states that the PSVita is better in EVERY single aspect, therefore as the NC it is my duty to disprove the Aff. I see this as an easy task due to the circumstances set up by the AC. First I will attack my opponent and then present my own case. "better graphics" When we compare aspects of gaming, graphics doesn't necessarily directly effect the quality of the game. For example mine-craft was rated one of the best games of 2011 and yet has some of the worst graphics. Although the PSVita does contain a graphics card which is 10x more powerful than the 3Ds. The PSVita does not contain two screens and 3D capabilities. The two screens allow for more creative game play ideas. "better games" Have you ever been browsing the internet and found a PlayStation has no games comic? If not let me link one to you, they are quite funny. http://img.photobucket.com... Playstation has a reputation for not having as many good games as Nintendo. This reputation is not one based off of laughs and jokes. This reputation is based off the long history of Playstation not releasing console selling games such as Halo, and Super Smash Brothers. So what does this mean for the future of playstation portable games? Also the 3DS has better games for children; Being the main market of these devices. Therefore has an advantage over the PSVista in one area. http://psp.about.com... "Dual Analogs" http://arstechnica.com... My case-- Once again I would like to replicate that only one aspect of the 3DS has to be greater for me to win this debate. Price. The price of the 3DS is significantly cheaper than the PSVista therefore making it more accessible, increasing multi-player capability(more children will have them). 3D. Come-on, this is entertainment, very soon everything will be in 3D. Leave it to Nintendo to be ontop. :) Memory. Included with the 3DS is 2GB of memory. Memory sticks have to be purchased with the PSVista. Lets keep the number of new arguments in the second round to a minimum, I dont want something so small to evolve in the second round. Also since is my first ever debate round in a long time, I would love to get some feedback in the comments!! Thanks All
Hockey is better than football

Argument #4: Hockey is more difficult to play Hockey is waaaay more challenging to play then football, especially ice hockey. First of all you got to learn how to skate. Then you hare to learn how to pass with a stick and all of that stuff. Then you have to get into even more shape so you don't tire out in the game and then you have to play 3-4 times a week! You also have to travel and practice. Imagine how sore you would be! Football may be tough but hockey is way tougher! And what if you get involved in a hockey fight? You could get beat up a bit adding to your troubles and all of that gear you have to wear! That is 20 pounds extra! All of these factors add up to make Hockey one of the most difficult sports out there. Argument #5: Hockey is much more worldwide "The Arab Cup of Ice Hockey was intended to be an annual international ice hockey competition involving teams from Arab nations. The inaugural tournament took place on the 16th to 20 June 2008 in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. A 2009 competition was planned to be held in Kuwait City, Kuwait but was cancelled." Imagine that. Arabs playing ice hockey in the boiling sun. If you have been to the middle east you would know how freaking hot it is. http://en.wikipedia.org... Check that out. All of those countries play ice hockey. But wait! There are even more forms of hockey then just plain old ice hockey! Even more countries play different forms of hockey! Even more. Hockey is an Olympic sport and football is not, making hockey even more international! Well, I hope you post something. DarthKirones
Hockey is better than football

That is a shame. Argument #2: Hockey is better for fans Don't us sports fans want lots of games? In hockey each team plays 82 games. 41 at home, 41 away. There are 30 teams in the NHL so the grand total of season games is 2460! In the NFL there are only 256 games! Like stated before, NFL games are very interrupted and the small number of games is just not worth it! And the playoffs in hockey are also much longer. See? There are many games and because teams usually play 3-4 times a week during the season there will be plenty of games with your favorite team! Argument #3: The variety If you saw my debate with Jacobie1121 about soccer and hockey you would have seen that I used that argument for Hockey before, but that will not stop me from using that argument here. Hockey has many variations. The most common version is ice hockey. However there are many other forms. There is field hockey for those who don't like the ice and cold. There is sledge hockey for the disabled. There is street hockey for those who just want a game, and many more! Hockey can be played by anyone. Don't like ice hockey? Play field hockey! Simple as that. Well, that's all for now. DarthKirones. Thank you.
Hockey is better than football

Let us begin. Argument #1: The speed Both Hockey games and Football last 60 minutes of game time. However Football get's irritating and even boring to watch. Why? Because an actual game will take 3 hours. That's right. There is more time spent with time outs and penalties then actual game play. Hockey is not stopped every 10-20 seconds. Hockey players just play. The speed of the game is not too short that you will disappointed but not so long you will be bored. There is no point in watching a long stretch of stoppages punctured by 10 seconds of game play. Sports fans, you want to watch games and have a few breaks, you don't want to watch breaks with a few seconds of game play, do you? Also, the overall pace of Hockey Games are MUCH faster. The playing fields are smaller which in this case is usually ice, the players go faster and the ball goes faster. Waaaaay faster. Faster players mean more competition to get to the puck. More competition means better games. Better games means happy fans. Thanks for accepting, I would do more points but I am a bit busy. It is mothers day and I have a mother to be with. DarthKirones
Hockey is better than football

"Hockey is a family of sports in which two teams play against each other by trying to maneuver a ball or a puck into the opponent's goal using a hockey stick. In many areas, one sport (typically field hockey or ice hockey) is generally referred to simply as hockey." "American football (known as football in the United States and gridiron in some other countries) is a sport played by two teams of eleven players on a rectangular field 120 yards long by 53.33 yards wide with goalposts at each end. The offense attempts to advance an oval ball (the football) down the field by running with or passing it. They must advance it at least ten yards in four downs to receive a new set of four downs and continue the drive; if not, they turn over the football to the opposing team. Most points are scored by advancing the ball into the opposing team's end zone for a touchdown or kicking the ball through the opponent's goalposts for a field goal. The team with the most points at the end of a game wins." These are my definitions of the two sports. Hello everybody. a couple weeks back me and my good friend Jacobie1121 did a debate about Hockey vs. Soccer. Well, I had an idea, why not do a similar debate? This is why I am starting this one. Rules - 1st round is for acceptance only -2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds are meant for arguments. AS MANY AS YOU WANT. -5th and final round is for rebuttals, closing statements and citing resources. Please do not post an argument in this round. Rebuttals are reserved for the fifth round only. I wish you the best of luck. DarthKirones
In a democracy: Civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

The 'resolution' is built with an inherent timeline. The word is denotes the present or current state. Sorry, can't dismiss difficult points. Since we can all vote now, we don't need CD. Everyone has an equal input in our legal system and therefore CD places the dissenting individual above everyone else. This goes against the very spirit of democracy and refutes the societal structure you attempt to procure. True, we don't vote directly on the laws themselves, but representatives are just that. They represent their constituents and their interests. If you don't like the way they vote, vote for a candidate who votes differently. CD is not necessary because we can induce change through the system. Your an Obama supporter, you should know that. The truth is, despite your personal opinion, dissenting the law is effectively placing your morality over the collaborative opinion of society. To disregard a law is to effectively say that your own morality is somehow more knowledged or more right than everyone elses. The law is a reflection of everyone's collaborative opinion. Going against it is to go against everyone else combined morality construct. Thereby, placing yourself above everyone else. Every instance of CD is an instance of defying societal morality. Every law is a reflection of society's opinion on the issue. You saying otherwise is to disregard that opinion. I would agree, there have been instances where CD has worked in the past. The examples you list occurred so that everyone's voice could be heard. Now that everyone can voice their opinion we have a reflection of all of society in our laws. CD is no longer necessary. The examples you give today are ones of protest. There is a distinction between protest and CD, as I pointed out in my last round. How does CD stop terrorism? That doesn't make any sense. I agree, I don't want to be attacked by a terrorist. Good thing terrorism is against the law. "There are other ways to oppose a law, and by all means use them, in fact, use them first, that's not the point of the resolution. The resolution only about weather or not it should be considered, the order does not matter." So, we should use alternative methods first (like voting), but the order doesn't matter. Kind of contradicting yourself here. Your 'meaning behind the resolution' argument doesn't function. We should use other methods (as I pointed out) first, but the order of functionality doesn't matter. I don't see how these arguments don't work against each other. I agree, we should use alternatives first, like voting. Now that our voting populus can be an accurate reflection of the entire spectrum, there is no longer a need for CD. Since you agree that we should use other things before disregarding the law, I don't see how we need to or should commit CD anymore. CD shouldn't be considered an option because it is no longer necessary as I just pointed out, you admit that we should use other methods first, and CD is a blatant disregard for the society you aim to defend.
In a democracy: Civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

Against your first statement i would like to point out that the there is not a time line on the resolution. If it was referring to presently the resolution would have stated so. There for i believe i can disregard your arguments about everyone presently being able to vote, because in the past they could not. Also, more presently, we all do elect Representatives, senators etc to represent us, this meaning we won't vote on all the laws that are passed. The people we elect will vote on laws that don't really directly apply to them at times, but may drastically apply to someone else, there for civil disobedience may be necessary. I don't believe it's putting yourself above the system if something truly matters to you that wouldn't really effect someone else. Can you give an instance that by committing CD we'd be disregarding the mortality of others? I claim that CD has bettered our nation in the sence that it has given women rights, also blacks, and i gave examples of ways it needs to be used today and i can elaborate on my examples if you would really like, my examples being to protest torture, pollution, abortion, and to preserve freedom of the press, also used for anti terrorism. I don't think you can find any sane American would would love to have a terrorist attack them, there for when someone is commiting CD to try to stop this why is that bad?? There are other ways to oppose a law, and by all means use them, in fact, use them first, that's not the point of the resolution. The resolution only about weather or not it should be considered, the order does not matter. And the fact that CD has been used in the past and Proven effective means that it can work, and if it can work why shouldn't it be considered an option?
In a democracy: Civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

While CD has greatly shaped our nation, it is no longer necessary and therefore, no longer appropriate. Everyone has the right to vote currently. This means everyone has equal opportunity to shape our country through voting. Disregard for laws that someone deems personally immoral is unecessary in our current democratic state. Further, who decides what is moral and immoral? Is there some kind of universal definition or moral prescription that we can all look to? Certainly not. So, whats the next best thing? A collaboration of these individual and distinct moralities which form a code that everyone abides by. In other words, laws. Everyone over the age of 18, with some exceptions which I won't get into, has the right to vote and thereby, submit their personal morality and judgement into the legal system. So, if you think a law is immoral, you have every right to vote against it or its representatives. But, disregarding the law is to go against the very moral fabric you attempt to defend. Each different individual contributes to our legal system. To claim that a law is against your moral code and then disregard it is to place yourself above your fellow citizens. How is it an individuals place to disregard societal mandates as a functioning member of that society? Does your morality hold more weight somehow than everyone elses? I'll answer your points as they apply to my argument. First, you claim that CD is non-violent. Thats all well and good. But, you are fundamentally disregarding the morality of everyone else in the process. Second, you claim that CD has bettered our nation. Bettered in what sense? Are you claiming that every peacable action against the law was a righteous one? Who is to say that the nation is better? Sure, by your standards great things have happened, but who are you to posture your opinion as the absolute one? Third, you claim that CD corrects injustice. This point is no longer relevant. The law currently holds that no one is barred from voting (mostly). So, who can't go out and voice their opinion? There isn't any injustice to be overcome that can't be overcome through the vote. Everyone can be heard, so if the collaborative society agrees that is an injustice, it will be solved through democracy anyway. There is a distinction that I need to point out at the bottom of your arg. Protest and CD are distinct. Protest is not against the law. CD is admittedly the peacable disregard for it. I wanted to clear this up so as not to have you lump them. In short, our opinions are heard through the vote, making CD unnecessary. The laws reflect the collaborative opinion of our society. Therefore, there will always be compromise. To place yourself above the law and posture your own morality above the collective opinion of the society you seek to defend is illigetimate. We don't have the kind of universal morality to determine which laws are immoral and which are not. To say that yours is best assumes that you somehow have more weight than the rest of the nation. CD goes against the very fabric of democracy for that reason.
Current LD topic

Full resolution; "The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives." Rules; This debate will take place in an LD (Lincoln-Douglas) format If you are not familiar with this style, or do not know how to debate this style, then do no accept this debate. Accepting this debate and not debating in an LD format will be the equivalent of a forfeit of all seven points. I will offer no further rules beyond those specified here; http://debate-central.ncpa.org... The above link is also a fantastic source for debating this resolution. Aff will start debate next round the round structure will be a follows 1- Rules/clarifications 2- Aff constructive (6,000 character limit + or - 50) 3- Neg constructive/ Neg's Attack (7,000 character limit + or - 50) 4- Aff rebuttal/ Aff's attacks (4,000 character limit + or - 50) 5- Neg rebuttals/ Extensions (optional)/ Voters (6,000 character limit + or - 50) 6- Aff closing (3,000 character limit + or - 50) Since LD is usually spoken debate, I am putting character restrictions here to even out he playing field. If you'll notice both debaters end up with a total of 13, 000 characters, so it's fair on both sides.
You Suck

Yesterday I was hanging out with my opponent near a local nursery. Not the kind you grow plants at, but the kind where you grow babies. He picked one up and took a big bite right out of its neck! All of my opponents claims are false, also, he has not showered for 5 years therefore he reeks. Also, he eats babies. I just exhaled so instead of sucking I blow. Also my opponent eats babies! Plus he kicks puppies and has NASTY DISEASES. You state falsehoods. I win!
You Suck

Of course I have evidence of your suckitude, because you are the gold standard to which all other suckers are held. If you look up suck in the dictionary, you will be knocked backward off your seat by enormity of your suck assaulting all sense at once. That is, of course, if anyone ever bothered to write anything about you ever, which they wont after this debate, because you suck so much. And you know what? Your potato soup sucks too, and so does your sucky bird feed. You suck like a mosquito.
You Suck

For starters, you have no evidence to back up your claims of the magnitude of my suckitude in your argument. I would move to argue that despite my glaring physical deformities that my face looks more like a pit than a butt. Also the nature of why my face is deformed as so is due to inhalation. Therefore I technically inhale. Not all suction cups suck. My bird feeder fell off my window yesterday. Now those birds are starving on the streets like hobos. I gave them so potato soup. You smell bad.
You Suck

Maybe you didn't understand the message of my opening statement, but this is just further evidence of how much you suck. You suck so much your face puckered in and inverted, like a butt. Your face looks like a butt because of how much you suck. So now your new name is Mr. Suck-Butt. But I'm getting off topic. The real point here is to convince you of the magnitude of your suckitude. You suck like the stickiest suction cup EVER INVENTED!