BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You choose the topic

FrameworkMy opponent does not rebut my framework, and does not make a new framework, so I assume that voters must follow my framework. Should v. s. MustMy opponent says that "should" basically means something is a good idea. He says that "must" is it needs to happen. That is why I made my argument of everyoneshouldnot were bowlers hat's, because some people might not want to, (Like me. ) Therefore, I said that we should not all wear bowler hats, because some people don't want to. I agree with my opponent that the resolution isshould. Rebuttals1. Not all people might think that it is classy, therefore not everyone should were bowling hats, as the liberty of choice says that we can own ourselves, and somepeople might think it is not classy, and they would not wear it, therefore vote for Con. And classy does not mean we should all wear it.2. My opponent says that then we don't need to wear snapbacks. At least snap backs have designs, when bowler hats don't. In baseball, no one would, or should wear bowler hats. They should were snapbacks. Baseball players were snapbacks too. This still does not fill his burden, because my opponent fails to say why snapbacks are bad, and we don't need to wear them, and should not wear them. My opponent does not say why the world will be a better place.3. My opponent says that we will all be connected. We can all be connected by snapbacks too, and it is better, because (1) it is cooler, and it has more design. My opponent does not say why we are only connected in bowler hats, you can feel the same way in other hats also.4. Then all the other jobs of making other hats will be worse. My opponent gives bare assertions. Defense1. LibertyMy opponent says that the resolution is should, so my argument does not impact. But I already stated it, let me state it again. That is why I made my argument of everyoneshouldnot were bowlers hat's, because some people might not want to, (Like me. ) Therefore, I said that we should not all wear bowler hats, because some people don't want to. I had two parts of my argument. That was my first part of liberty. I also had a must part, and my opponent only refuted that. ConclusionVote for Con. It is a easy vote. My opponent gives bare assertions that bowler hats are cool, when I said that snapbacks are way cooler, and I gave a reason, because snapbacks have designs, and also children like them, but they would feel uncomfortable in bowler hats, and it looks strange. My opponent says that there will be no more snapbacks, when I showed that snap backs are cool, so my opponent's first 2 arguments are not met. I said that we can all be connected by wearing snapbacks too, not only bowler hats. My opponent tackles half of my argument, the off-topic part, and does not attack my should part. Any my opponent can't rebut it because of my framework, and my opponeny cannot refute my framework because it is unfair to do so.
You choose the topic

Con misinterpreted the rules, but that's not a big deal. I will be clearer about how I explain the terms of the debate next time. We are no arguing about Bowler hats. For fairness sake however, Con should pass on his final round since he made an argument on Bowler hats in round one. Otherwise he will get one more speech than I do. *** First I want to make a note of 'should' versus 'must'. 'Should' implies that something is a good idea, whereas 'must' implies something has to happen. In order to win this debate, I only need to show that it would be a good idea for everyone to wear bowler hats. I am under no obligation to show that everyone must wear them. Liberty The analysis between framework and case-debate here blends together pretty seamlessly, so I'll be tackling them in one lump sum. Con's summation of Mill's Harm principle is incomplete and doesn't grant him much in regards to making liberty a voting issue. The argument is that people's actions shouldn't be restricted unless they could harm others - this is an epistemology unsound weighing mechanism for justice as we can never know the consequences of our actions before they happen. Through mill's harm principle I could pour out my drink on the ground not thinking anything of it, in that moment my action doesn't hurt anyone. however if someone later slipped on it, I violate their sense of liberty through my action. It is an incomplete mechanism and should be rejected outright. Con's analysis contrasting Liberty and Freedom is valuable however, and it a reason to vote Pro in this debate. Because the resolution says 'should' rather than 'must', no one's sense of liberty is at stake. One could recognize that it is a good idea to wear bowler hats and still choose not to do so just as one may recognize it is a good idea to exercise and eat healthy but choose not to do so. Con proves one thing: Everyone must not wear bowler hats, not that Everyone should not wear bowler hats. This nets Con no offensive ground, so the best he can hope for at this point is a tie. At the point that the burden of proof is shared, I win if I can show even one reason why Everyone should wear bowler hats. Reasons we should all wear Bowler Hats 1. They're stylish and classy. If everyone wore bowler hats then we would all look a lot fancier 2. It would mean no one would wear snapbacks. This would be a major upset to the dudebro culture which would make the world a better place. 3. It would create a sense of unity. When we're all wearing bowler hats, we'll feel more connected to one another. We'll share a common bowler-hat-humanity - we can discuss hat upkeep tips, and chat about what kinds of bowler hats we like. 4. It would be a boom to industry. All of those hats are going to have to come from somewhere, can you say jobs much?
You choose the topic

Preface3K characters. How short. The debate does not say if we should accept right now, or present my arguments, but I will just provide my arguments in this round. I choose that we should wear bowler hats, CON.Defintions Bowler's hat: I am Con, so I am saying we should not wear them.Framework Let's quickly talk about the burdens. The burden is shared, as both sides will argue. My framework will be centered around liberty."Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled. In theology, liberty is freedom from the bondage of sin.Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others [2]" [1]. Liberty is a very famous law, as well as the harm principle, meaning that we can do anything unless it does not hurt others, it is from John Stuart Mill. It is right, because we need the liberty of choice, and self-ownership to have our own rights, otherwise we will live like slaves. I will tell in my arguments why liberty helps my case.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.bartleby.com...Argument 1: LibertyAs I presented in my framework, liberty is the freedom of choice. Harm principle is that you can do anything unless it does not harm others. We have the liberty of choice to not wear bowling hats, some people might think that it is ugly. We should not restrict this, because everyone's liberty and freedom of choice is important. Not having the rule does not harm anyone, even without the rule you can still wear them anyways, but making this law will restrict them, and some people would not want to do this, and we are taking away their liberty. They don't need to wear this, as the harm principle says that it does nt harm others.Therefore, 2 laws follow that we should not all wear bowling hats, vote for Con.ConclusionI proved that restriciting and having a rule to wear bowling hats takes away their liberty, and we don't need to because of the harm principle. If my opponent get argue with these to good rules in the U.S., and in almost everywhere else in the world, I invite them to do so.Image: http://tinyurl.com...
You choose the topic

This is meant to be a fun, light hearted debate. Offer three silly topics (macaroni is better than spaghetti, we should all wear bowler hats, pokemon is better than yu-gi-oh, etc.) And I'll choose the one I like best. If all of the topics offered are offensive, too serious, skewed, truistic or otherwise inaccessible, then I'll choose a different topic entirely. No real rules, just don't be a dick. I reserve the right to expand on what that means as necessary, but hopefully I won't have to.
Christianity or Roman Catholic

Christianity is true over Catholicism. Christians get their authority from the Bible. Catholics get their authority from the church. The Catholic Church and the Bible are completely contradictory. it comes down to whether you take the catholic church, which has no right to authority at all and simply claims to be the ultimate authority, or the Bible, which has been proven to be true time and time again based on the prophesies it made which all came to pass, and has been the rightful authority to all Christians.
Policy

I completly agree with my opponenets arguments, but unfortunatly has side tracked form the point, the point of the debate was about the amount of troops stationed in different countries. : "Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey." My opponents last round has gone into talking about costs and previous administrations. Therefore i can not post a proper argument in reply to his, as it would be out of context although I fully agree with his reasoning interms of price and ETC. What I can Answer, as I mentioned in my opening argument, with being the worlds super power, comes duties, the Unites States Armed Forces are stationed abroad not because they want to but because they have to. In terms of costs, that is up to a different debate. I would like to thank my opponent for this GREAT debate in which I had a great time debating! Godspeed!
Policy

Thanks for a good discussion, this is a definite asset for me. On Japan/South Korea While it may be classified information to some extent, it may not be as bad if both actually paid the United States for their defense. Somehow, I do not believe that they are. We are placing our sons and daughters in harms way, for another country, and paying the bill? What benefit do we as Americans glean from this? In other words, is this smart policy? I would have to say no. We are only bound by our own self imposed shackles. We could just as easily give them a date and opt out. Would it leave them hanging? To some extent it would, yet it would also give them adequate time to prepare their own defense, or negotiate it with another country. It really isn't our problem. On Afghanistan As we learned (or didnt learn) in Viet Nam, we cannot win a war of attrition. It is too costly in all respects, American lives and money notwithstanding. The public will not stomach this situation forever, and more troops will not guarantee success, but it will guarantee more death. On Iraq/Kuwait Kuwait and Saudi Arabia did ask for help once upon a time. Previous administrations have even helped both sides in the past. It makes sense to begin a slow and methodical withdrawl as the situation permits. In his farewell address, George Washington warned against meddling in unhealthy aliances and unprofitable foreign affairs. As with most of his sound & timeless foresight, American leaders have ignored it for the worse. http://avalon.law.yale.edu... I thank my opponent for this debate, best of luck to you uin the future. Thomas
Policy

Many thanks to my opponenet for responding to the debate and maintaing such a high level of arguments as in his previous round Japan\South Korea: Before I respond with with my arguments, I would like to point out a few things.. " Did we not trust both Germany and Italy to rebuild their military?" - indeed we did, but after WW2, the Germans and Italians where at no threat like the one coming from North Korea to Japan and South Korea When my opponents speaks of high costs, I completly agree with him, however the cost of maintaning troops over seas has always had high costs. (whether or not this money should be spent like that is completly up to debate) The problem with taking down the amount of troops in South Korea or Japan, is not the fact that we dont trust these Nations to defend themselves, its that they probably COULD NOT defend themselves when fighting against the Noth Koreans. One has to remember that North Korea Military interms of man power and strength is possibly one of the strongest and feared. So having 71,000 troops positioned in Japan and South Korea, is a smart thing considering what a fragie situation this is. Sure the costs are high to keep our boys over seas, but imagine the costs of not having them there... we could probably be facing a VERY dangerous war with both Korean States. Having a high military presence in Korea in Japan isnt just incase of war to have a reserve or well trained American troops, but also phycologically sending a message to North Korea, saying, if you wage war to Japan or South Korea, you go to war with us too.. Whether or not one agrees with the War in Afghanistan is up to them, the thing is its happened and as my opponent has said. Who knows how long they will be there for. I stick with my previous argument on the topic of Iraq and Afghanistan. The more men we put in, the faster we can eliminate and take out the opposition adn control Afghanistan, the faster our boys can all go home. Iraq\Kuwait: What the Islamic states dont remember is that they were the ones that asked the west for aid when they were at War. Iraq, The Iraqi people were dying for American and coalition forces to take out Saddam, and with my previous argument know go knows when we will be able to leave. The Islamic people cant just wish us there and wish us out when the job is done because thats not how it works. Whether these people are educated enough to be able to make the comparrison is another story.. Thanks once again to my opponenet
Policy

My opponent offered a very good response, especially regarding our defense of Japan. Japan/South Korea: I can see due to their close proximity, how Japan and South Korea could be mutually beneficial in both defense as well as deterrence. We have approximately 35,000 troops in Korea and approximately 41,000 in Japan. Of course many of those numbers include support troops along with combat troops, yet 71,000 could constitute the equivalent of 3 divisions. I wonder how long America will have to protect Japan? Indefinitely? After some 70 years have passed, can we not trust Japan to form their own military for their own defense? Did we not trust both Germany and Italy to rebuild their military? South Korea is capable of defending itself, and should the need arise, America has Rapid Deployment Forces that could come to their aid within hours if requested. How much does it cost the taxpayer to maintain forces that aren't really necessary? Indulge me in this example. During Operation Desert Storm, I was a member of the 101st Airborne Division. Let's assume for simplicity that we had 20,000 soldiers. For simplicity, let's assume that an MRE (Meal Ready to Eat) costs $3, and each soldier got 2 MREs per day. $6 times 20,000 soldiers equals $120,000 per day just to feed the soldiers! That's a lot of money! Now add in all of the other costs, that's a lot of money! Afghanistan: America will be trapped in this quagmire as long as it wishes, but their will not be a definitive conclusion. This is a perpetual conflict as I illustrated with the roaches. Who has the stronger resolve? What will that resolve cost in terms of lives, property, and money? Will it ever really be over? Will we ever kill all of the terrorists? No, we won't. IRAQ/Kuwait: I agree with my opponent that we can't leave Iraq high and dry. However; what Americans cannot fathom is our intrusion in Islamic nations. The last thing they want is infidels who are used to total freedom coming in and totally disrespecting and disrupting their way of life. Islam is not just a religion, it is who they are. Further, as soon as possible, the Shi'ites and Sunni's would like to resume their own conflict, just as soon as they can get rid of the stinkin' Americans. Folks we won't transform Iraqis into "Arab Americans", it just doesn't work that way. If "W" was trying to help out his Haliburton buddies, or if we are trying to keep a thumb on the oil, it sure hasn't shown any improvement at the pump for the average American consumer. We should seriously train their military and police forces and va-moose! Regardless of "opinion poll results" THEY DO NOT WANT US THERE. As stated, I do feel that it is beneficial to maintain resources in these areas, but not to the extent that we presently have. It is vital to both our interests, and to a lesser extent that of our allies, to maintain a limited presence especially in Turkey. Ezekiel 38 probably isn't that far off! Thanks! Given the above, we should adjust our policy accordingly, and reduce the number of troops in the areas herewith. Thanks
Policy

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey. South Korea - South Korea can be likened to Viet Nam in that it is a small Asian nation that offers little military value to the United States. The very distance from North Korea to California offers enough response time to prepare for an attack. While it would be advantageous to have an FOB in the Pacific threatre should we have encounters with China, South Korea would likely be overrrun. therefore, it makes little sense to keep forces there. Japan - Japan is a low threat to the United States, and maintains good relations with the United States. There is no need to maintain a military presence there. Afghanistan - Afghanistan can also be likened to Viet Nam in that we have enemies that we cannot always recognize. We are paying the bill to help people who were by and large content. Afghanistan offers training facilities for terrorists who seek to damage / destroy the United States and her allies. Without playing the semantics game, the conflict in Afghanistan is a seemingly unwinnable conflict. It is a war of attrition. For every roach that is stepped on, there are many more in hiding. Suppose we captured Osama bin Laden, then pounded all of the Taliban and al Qaida camps. Would that expedite the end? Or would it continue? Whatever the answer, we must: 1) define success, 2) have a reasonable plan, 3) execute the plan, 4) determine if success has been achieved. Regardless, we cannot continue with business as usual. Kuwait & Iraq: We basically adopted Kuwait as a kid brother during Operation Desert Shield. Then, President Bush, made it our business to remove the bad apples in Iraq, replace them with puppets, and make Iraq our friend. It is now necessary to maintain a force in Iraq due to the threats from Iran. Most of Iraq's conflicts ended in stalemate. They can obviously defend themselves against the competition in the Middle East, therefore, the U.S. could slowly reduce it's military presence. Turkey - Turkey is a Muslim nation that is intelligent enough to maintain relations with both the United States and Israel. Whiel we do not have a substantial number of troops in Turkey, I feel it prudent to maintain secure air bases with emergency lodging. Turkey's geographic location is ideal for our interests in the Middle East. Given the above, I feel that Turkey is the only location in which the U.S. should not seek to substantially reduce it's military presence. Thanks
Pokemon could not kill people in real-life.

Tsk tsk tsk. My opponent committed a fallacy, I believe. All he's talking about is "Anime!", this is completely irrelevant. Yes, we have a Pokemon anime, which IS 2D, but that's completely aside from the REAL case. "Are pokemon capable of killing a person?" The answer is: "Yes. Pokemon can kill you." This is a circumstantial case; "IF pokemon existed, they could kill a person". My case stands, as Pro has not responded to the actual premise. And I guess I could humor Pro a bit. Have you ever heard of "Pokemon X and Y"? This is 2014 stuff, so you'd have no idea what it is. Basically, it's the 6th generation of the Pokemon video game franchise, for the Nintendo 3DS; in 3D. Don't believe me? Take a look at this: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net.... Bulbapedia is a wiki for the Pokemon franchise. If you don't trust the site, too bad. Back on track: Pro hasn't answered the question: "Can a Pokemon kill you?" I'm not talking about a paper cut-out. I'm not talking about a television. I'm talking about a yellow mouse who can launch electricity at people! (A Pikachu.) HOLD IT! Don't think I'm done here! I have a feeling you'll respond with "A Pikachu can't exist in real life!". My response? "Irrelevant!" Again, this is a circumstantial case. "It can't exist" is nothing. We're only imagining a situation where they would exist. (Don't use "imagining" as a weapon against me, it's a circumstantial case) If they did exist, they could poison/electrocute/burn/crush us. And with that done and said, what does Pro have to say?
Pokemon could not kill people in real-life.

Cool. But let’s get real here. As Con knows, we’re no longer talking about leprechauns, unicorns, and pots of gold hiding at the end of the rainbow, but real-life. And in the real world, all living and non-living entities are bound by natural and physical laws of space, time, and energy; including laws of Spatial Dimensions: https://en.wikipedia.org... But what are Pokémon? Pokémon are 2D –hand drawn- fictional cartoon charactersthat are part of the Pokémon Anime published and designed by Nintendo (https://en.wikipedia.org...). There is no evidence or example of an animated Pokémon character that wasn’t hand-drawn or computer generated and not depicted on a flat-surface. Zero. There is no evidence of even 3d cartoons –of non-Pokémon- technically only being 2d illusions in our universe. More importantly, there is no example of the Pokémon universe (the world Pokémon are depicted living in) also not being hand-drawn, computer-generated, and by virtue, flat by design. Were a 2D Pokémon character therefore actually alive it could only exist in the 2nd dimension. And because Pokémon could only exist in the 2nd dimension, they would have no atoms (atoms are 3D). And without atoms, Pokémon would have no mass, without mass, they would have no energy, and without energy, it is technically improbable that a Pokémon could potentially harm a human-being. If Pokémon and similarly hand-drawn cartoons existed, in our universe, they would only exist in the 2nd dimension. I rest my case.