BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S was the most powerful country after World War II

The United States was not the most powerful country after World War Two. After the conclusion of World War Two the United States armed forces demobilized it's forces, American armed forces shrank from about twelve million in June 1945 to one-and-a-half million in June 1947. However, the Soviet Union failed to demobilize its massive army in the wake of defeat of Nazi Germany. The Soviet maintained the most powerful army after World War Two compared to the United States. The United States did create the first nuclear bomb, but the Soviet Union was not far behind and the two superpowers went back and forth during the cold war, however the Soviet Union did maintain the largest stockpile of nuclear bombs during the Cold War. The space race was another example of Soviet power, the Soviet Union sent the first man into space greatly embarrassing the United States. What I said:- The United States was not the most powerful country after World War Two- American armed forces shrank from about twelve million in June 1945 to one-and-a-half million in June 1947- Soviet Union failed to demobilize its massive army- Soviet Union did maintain the largest stockpile of nuclear bombs during the Cold War- Soviet Union sent the first man into spaceSources:https://www.mtholyoke.edu...http://government.arts.cornell.edu...
The U.S was the most powerful country after World War II

The United States, had the most powerful military the world had ever seen. At the end of World War II, the United States Navy had the largest and most well trained naval forces the world had ever seen. With almost thirty fleet carriers, 23 battleships, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, over 232 submarines, 377 destroyers, and thousands of amphibious, supply and auxiliary ships, the United States could project power in both the Pacific and the Atlantic easily. Most of the crews were battle-hardened and all well trained. This could be seen in the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the Battle of Midway, the Battle of Okinawa, and the Battle of Iwo Jima, along with the bombardment of Japan. The United States Army and Marines were also well trained, and able to project power nearly everywhere in the world. The United States economy had been the largest since the 1920s. That industrial power grew during World War II granting them vast amounts of economic might not seen in the world since. It was also the only country out of the Big Three not to be attacked on their home soil except for a few special cases on the West Coast. That is all the time I have for now. I await your arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The American Trade Embargo Against Cuba should be eliminated

Well I accept. C1. The Cuban government is a totalitarian dictatorship which suppresses their own people. The question I present for my opponent is why should the United States economically help a country, which has to vital strategic importance to the United States, which goes completely against the US's ideology? Cuba wants the United States to completely end our blockade but, in return they want to concede nothing. They will not relax their policy of oppressing their own people. So once again I ask, why should the United States end a blockade when doing so would result in strengthening an oppressive government? It is a matter of principle that we keep the blockade. It is the only leverage the United States holds to try and loosen the Cuban people from the yoke of this totalitarian regime. C2. The economy is nationalized. The Cuban economy is nationalized. So by ending this blockade it would result in money flowing into the Central government allowing Cuba to pursue their communist agenda abroad and oppress their own people's civil liberties. This police state of Cuba controls the lives of 11 million people. Why should the US contribute to this oppression by opening trade with Cuba? C3. The Castros hate the United States. Ending a blockade would not solve this hate. "Lifting the embargo won't normalize relations, but instead legitimize -- and wave the white flag to -- Fidel's 50-year fight against the Yanquis, further lionizing the dictator and encouraging the Latin American Left" (1). They are not going to end their policy of not liking the United States. Now let's take a step back. Cuba is very close to the Continental United States. If we open free relations with Cuba other countries might decide that since Cuba can help them let's become allies. Do you know what countries these include? China, Russia, and Iran. Iran would not hesitate to use the advantage that Cuba would bring to them militarily. They will send missiles to Cuba. Guess what country they'll be aimed at. The United States. By opening trade with Cuba the United States allows Cuba to modernize their infrastructure, allow them to build a more powerful military, and give Iran an incentive to want to create an alliance with Cuba. Furthermore, with the resources gained from the end of the blockade, Cuba would team up with "rulers of nations like Venezuela, Nicaragua and Bolivia to advance socialism and anti-Americanism in the Western Hemisphere." How does this help the United States? It does not. Giving in to "evil" only begets more evil.
Rap battle

Damn right I heard of global warmin! I f***in' cause that s***. I'm so hot i'll melt the Earth, so get ready, you bitch! Yeah, im your Shepard: you just a sheep in the heard! And the only way you're like a volcano's the way you gettin' BURNED! 'cause you know Im controling you more than China controls Tibet. Oh and stop talkin' about yous bitches, as if you've even had sex. I am a rap god, and i'll cure you of your sickness! Just two verses in and you already beggin' for forgiveness. Out of the two of us, there ain't never been no doubt that ive bested the "greatest". DATXDUDE OUT!!!!!!!!
Rap battle

"the flow of 10,000 glaciers", ever heard of global warming, but hey, ill go easy, since you still learning. boy, they think im a volcano the way i drop fire, and there so much knowledge in my brain when i go and rain bombs and little "rappers" like you, make you extinct, like Hitler with the Jews, I spit fire, get bitches like dire, meanwhile yo bitch still flatter than a tire, i mean, thats assuming you got a bitch, probably not since you look like that lil frik from lilo and stitch, man, you cant even fathom this s***, throwin verses round faster than tom brady can yell "hit" and i change the game like Lebron and the Heat, and just like them, I'm impossible to beat, so i wish you luck, cause your now flirtin with death, rappin against the greatest, getting beat by the best
Rap battle

You think yous a terrorist? Ha! Dont make me laugh. Bitch@ss thinks he can find a village, can't even read a map. Kid thinks he has a crew. Well ain't that cute. The only hoe he has is the blow up doll in his bedroom. But thats not surprising, look at this nerd. He has less "grace" than a frozen turd. I'm a master F**in lyricist, and don't you forget it. I got the flow of 10,000 glaciers, boy, don't you get it? You can't beat me! Cant you see? Ain't no rapper like me in the god damn galaxy! Yeah, pay me 20$ 'cause you just got served. Have a nice f@@ng day. WORD.
Rap battle

See you can label my actions "terrorist" the way ill wreck this snobbish bitch.. Cuz ur styles so ' tied up ' , it came w/ a mega phone and a group of hostages. My crew could snatch ya hoe n hit her raw till that twat is diminishing.. That chick'll take enough ' shots on her stomach ' to revolutionize sniper positioning. I came in w/ grace. When Dude started we knew you weren't dope w/ it.. U've had a ' rocky start ' bad enough to avalanche an entire remote village. I slay this f@@@ w/ ease, trust it. Somebody better warn the kid.. Cuz if No shows then I'll leave him beaten n wishing that he never did. I lead Boss Status like I'm Derrick Rose n killin cats like you so shameless.. I'll give him a ' shot behind the head ' that makes Boozers jumper look like the greatest. Now try and recover, and d-d-d-don't trip over that stutter
Rap battle

Yo I be Datxdude, I got me and my team. We gonna raise hell against this wanna be. Yeah Gaven 12 Kelly, thinks he's so fly. But after this battle, he's gonna cry. Nobody can compete with my rapping skillz. If they try, they get verbally killed. Ha! You think you got what it takes? Kid, you makin' a huge mistake. We'll all see soon, that I am the master as I verbally slaughter this fake @ss b@stard.
Should a teen under the age of 18 get a tattoo

"A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers"-Plato. Everyday, we make choices that affect our lives in various and often unexpected ways; we have no ability to constrain the effects of our actions to one outcome, but we can make wise decisions that will benefit our lives. With that in mind, considering the possible outcomes of getting a tattoo, it is not a choice that we should be at liberty to make with the knowledge that is available to a person when they are under 18 years old. The simple realization of the issue is that tattoos can have catastrophic effects on your life. From a mathematician's point of view, I see it like this: the world is like a quadratic equation or parabola- there are an infinite number of combinations that interlock and intertwine to create a unique and never identical set of answers. Tattoos follow this simple law of nature. When you get a tattoo, the meaning of it may be intended in a certain way, but is perceived in an inappropriate or unexpected way by others. Miss-understandings in relationships, like marriage, is the most common form of this effect. Therefore, the effects of tattoos can be harmful. The effects of tattoos are increased dramatically since they are a permanent extension to your person. Now then, let us think about how long indefinitely is; it"s a vast amount of time. Getting a tattoo about something that has the ability to change is one of the many issues that could occur. For example, getting a tattoo with the name of someone important in your life, at the time, could cause some really rough riding later in life. This complication all comes down to whether you"d like to take a jump-off-the-cliff risk. In the plain and simple, I don"t think kids should have the freedom to get a tattoo when they are in their teenage years. Becoming a teenager is not a license to ruin your life, it"s an opportunity to make your own beneficial life decisions. Before you walk into that tattoo shop and receive your own little surprise, remember that what you do now will affect everything that follows.
Should a teen under the age of 18 get a tattoo

Should a teeneger get a tattoo under the age of 18? Teenagers are like a whole new race of humans with their rebellious nature, outspoken acts, and emotional bumps. However, the teenage years are the ones that start the real trials of responsibility. Teenagers of all sorts go through sufferings, and each can see their suffering in different ways. Whether it be the loving aunt that died, the family that is broken up, or that first heart break. How they choose to deal with that suffering is unique as well. Some teenagers choose to remember these times permanently and visually, with tattoos. Whether the tattoo be of a person, a verse, or a very meaningful image. Teenagers can express love through tattoos. It is completely fine for a teenagers to get a tattoo with the right reasoning. Be mindful of meaning and be slow to judge a teen with a tattoo. You,never know what they've been through or who they've lost.
Yo' Mama is stupider, uglier, and fatter than mine.

1. Yo mama so stupid, she tried to snort Coke and got ice cubes stuck in her nose. 2. Yo mama so ugly, when yo mama lover threatened to release nude photos of her on the internet unless he was given $1,000,000, the public immediately paid the ransom. 3. Yo mama so fat, she excels at track practice. She practices being the track, and everyone runs around her.
Yo' Mama is stupider, uglier, and fatter than mine.

1. Yo mama so stupid, she found a sticker that said "Scratch-and-Sniff" and went looking for a dog who had lost his to-do list. 2. Yo mama so ugly, even the tide won't take her out. 3. Yo mama so fat, if fat could be converted to fuel, Oklahoma would have the largest energy reserves on the planet.
Yo' Mama is stupider, uglier, and fatter than mine.

1. Yo mama is so stupid, I put a Scratch-N'-Sniff sticker on the bottom of the pool and she drowned. 2. Yo mama is so ugly, when aliens abducted humans, her being one of them, they said "oops, wrong species!". 3. Yo mama is so fat, she walked past the TV and I missed 7 episodes of 60 minutes
Yo' Mama is stupider, uglier, and fatter than mine.

"And i will stay as original as possible." No, feel free to use quoted material. Correct me if I'm wrong, but non-original jokes were allowed in the original debate. As far as votes go, I think giving all 7 to the person with the person with the best votes would be appropriate. There aren't really arguments/sources and poor conduct is essentially the purpose of this debate. If you disagree with this, CON, feel free to object. 1. Yo mama so stupid, it takes her 2 hours to watch 60 minutes. 2. Yo mama so ugly, the movie 'Gorillas in the Mist' was filmed in her shower. 3. Yo mama so fat, she fell in love once, but she broke it.
god lives

15 minute argument limit. Argument: God has not lived for a very long time, as evidenced by the holocaust [1], and God intervening (as seen in the bible) far lesser suffering [2]. Unless pro wishes to argue the Nazis were doing God’s will, in which case they could not have lost the war… Thus regardless of existence, God has clearly been demonstrated to have not been alive for over half a century. Rebuttals: “evidence of him because he created us in his image” The resolution “god lives” clearly calls for God being alive. Pro’s own testimony counters that, as the human lifespan is less than any estimate of the age of the earth. Humans being made in the image of God, would logically have the same life span. “if you dont believe you are ignorant and you hate him” Ad Hominem attack, which does nothing to support the resolution. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://www.biblegateway.com...
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

I think you may have misunderstood my first point. I was disagreeing with your phrase "superior financial position," not the fact that lawyers draft the legal documents. I am stating that this company was not as financially solid as you paint it to be. You state that if Williams was to attempt to buy a stereo at another store, she would have been turned away because of her financial situation. However, this is also just an assumption. On the contrary, her monthly income and expenses actually DO show that Williams is able to afford the monthly payment plan. However, Williams must also tend to seven children on her government stipend. This is more likely negligence on the part of Williams, and not inconsideration by Walker-Thomas. Therefore, the company still has the right to repossess all items purchased since 1957, making the contract not unconscionable.
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

You state that it is an assumption to say that Walker-Thomas had attorneys draw up their contracts. However is it not typically attorneys who draft legal documents? You then state that Walker-Thomas is a "decent sized company" without citing any information about the business"s backgrounds. It must be fair then to say that these too are assumptions. However, even if Walker-Thomas is a small business, they are still in a better financial situation to develop a business model, with or without attorneys, to put them at an advantage over their customers. An individual like Williams does not have those same or comparable advantages. It is also an assumption on your part to declare that Walker-Thomas would have no customers due to an unfair and harmful clause in their sales contract. If Williams, and other customers in similar financial situations, sought to buy similar items at another store, she would have been turned away for failure to pay the entire cost at once. Her monthly income and expenses would not have allowed her to purchase the items she was able to get at Walker-Thomas under a different kind of purchase agreement. If Walker-Thomas was the only store to offer these kinds of items on a rent-to-own basis, Williams would not have had a choice about where to shop and her bargaining potential against Walker-Thomas would remain nonexistent. It is this kind of situation that puts Walker-Thomas at a distinct advantage over their customers. The court has the ability to pick and choose which clauses of a contract to uphold. Rather than ruling only in her favor and absolving Williams of the past due amount of $164 and allowing her to keep all items purchased, the court should allow a re-negotiation of terms to allow her to keep items largely paid off since 1957 in exchange for the return of items of equal or lesser value. This way she has not wasted 5 years of payments out of her limited income on items she can no longer keep. Such a judgment against Walker-Thomas would dissuade similar businesses from utilizing these unfair practices and would set a precedent meant to protect consumers from this kind of contract. And ultimately the ongoing development of the concept of unconscionability under the law is in everyone"s best interest.
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

You claim that Walker-Thomas was in a superior financial position to hire legal assistance to perfect their unfair business model. However, this is just an assumption. In fact, Walker-Thomas is a decent-sized company only operating in one U.S. city. They are not a multi-million dollar corporation, and are not free to spend a frivolous amount on the hiring of brute corporate lawyers. I agree with you that it is the court"s responsibility to protect consumers from unfair and potentially harmful actions of retailers and manufacturers. However, Walker-Thomas did not act unfairly towards Williams in regards to the contract. During the consultation in 1957, and again in 1962, Williams was consulted with the entire contract, including the provision which stated Walker-Thomas could repossess the items in which she defaulted payment. If this was truly an unfair and harmful clause, no one, including Williams, would agree to such a contract and Walker-Thomas would have no customers. Virtually, the company would have gone out of business if this was the case. However, Williams (as well as other customers) entered freely into this agreement in order to purchase her stereo. There is insufficient proof as to what the hopes of Walker-Thomas were. It is true that the company would have authorization to possess the items, but that action is solely based on the action (or, inaction) of Williams, and not Walker-Thomas. "Hope" is not a substantial foundation upon which you could argue that the contract is unconscionable.
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

While the agreement may have been signed in the form of a standard form contract, that does not make it correct. Walker-Thomas was in a superior financial position to hire legal assistance to perfect their unfair business model and take advantage of people like Williams. Williams did not have the advantage of excess wealth to have someone review the contracts for her. Walker-Thomas did fail to work with Williams towards an amicable solution even though they clearly had the means to do so. That is why it is the duty of the courts to protect consumers from unfair practices, such as this kind of standard form contract. It is not the duty of the court to pass judgment on the lifestyle of consumers but rather to protect them from the potentially harmful actions of retailers/manufacturers. The definition of unconscionable is left vague for the specific purpose of allowing the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it is clear that Walker-Thomas formulated their standard contract to allow for maximum gain and put the buyer at a disadvantage. Even someone in a better financial position than Williams could have fallen prey to the fine print provisions. The contract is not unconscionable merely because Williams assumed she would be able to keep up with her payments. It is unconscionable because even though she had kept up with her payments, after 5 years she was faced with the possibility of having nothing to show for those payments. The provisions of the standard form contract would have put Walker-Thomas at a distinct advantage by not only having earned 5 years worth of installment payments, but also the ability to resell the repossessed items for additional profit. Walker-Thomas may not have had any reason to believe that Williams would fall victim to the terms of the provision, but they had every reason to hope that she would. And it is from exactly this kind of nefarious business practice that consumers, including Williams, must be protected.
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

It may seem like the terms of the contract are unreasonably favorable to Walker-Thomas, but this is not the case. The standard form contract in which both parties entered into clearly granted authorization for Walker-Thomas to repossess the items in the event of a default of payment. It is true that there exists the absence of a provision which could have stated the the possibility for both parties to reconsider her payment plans. However, no such provision exists, and Williams voluntarily entered into this agreement with full knowledge of her circumstances. You accuse Walker-Thomas of failing to take the responsibility of working with her more to reach a more beneficial solution. However, Williams must take responsibility of her actions, which was entering into a contract that required monthly payments for a stereo while attempting to raise seven children on welfare. Furthermore, it is illogical to classify this contract as unconscionable simply because Williams assumed she would not "fall victim to the unfavorable terms in the contract." Because she WAS making the payments on previously purchased items, Walker-Thomas had no reason to believe that they would be victim to the terms of that provision as well.