BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Argumentation skills are generally more important than geography to most educated people

I would just like to expand on exactly what my premise intends to cover. It intends to cover my belief that, while some people put heavy emphasis on geography (particularly geography in relation to exactly where other nations are, or even perhaps capitals of US states), even making claims that people (often Americans) are stupid for not knowing very much about it (http://www.cnn.com...) (http://www.youtube.com...) I believe that geography has little practical purpose for a good deal of even educated Americans, especially amongst something much more important, argumentation skills in general. (The use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos (And other such modes of appeal) in ordinary life). I'd like this to be four rounds so I can keep with my bad habit of not creating full opening statements.
Argumentation skills are generally more important than geography to most educated people

It would appear my opponent has forfeited. I will therefore give a summation of the arguments. If you accept my semantics and use general defintions, geography is more important. If you accept my semantics and use specific defintions, geography is more important. If you accept my opponent's semantics (you shouldn't, since he didn't justify them), my opponent never refuted my Aquinas argument, and geography is still more important to educated people. It would seem that I have won across the board, although it is dispointing that this is mainly because my opponent never responded to half of my arguments.
London is the best capital city in the world.

And live in no fear that your impressive list of fantastic monuments will deter me from me from mentioning my 'big clock' because oh, what a mighty fine clock it is, not to mention the spectacular Big Ben behind it, or the masterful parliament beneath its feet, nor the spectacular Westminster Cathedral, infact the whole westminster palace is quite spectacular, and while I mention cathedrals, St Pauls is also too fine to miss of this weak list of mine. Perhaps I should mention the tower of london? And that the British Crown Jewels stored within are considered to be the most valuable and one of the largest jewellery collections in existence? Perhaps to this little list I could simply mention Greenwich? Its not that its historically significant or anything, I just thought I would mention it. Now since not all the audience will be convinced that Significant world heritage sites defines what is the worlds best capital city. Let me put forward why Jerusalem certainly is not the worlds best capital city. It has been the focal point, for which the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people have been suffered. A reason (not the only) for why the middle east hates the west, a furthermore a focal point for terrorist activity. A place for where hundreds of years hundreds of thousands perhaps millions (dont quote me on that one! )have died for the sake of some holy land. That is why it is an IMPORTANT city, Not the best. And since my opponent has not put forward any other capital cities to best my own. I can say no more. I can only hope the primarily American audience of this website, even if they vote for con, one day visits London and see for yourselves why it is my favourite capital city. Thank you
London is the best capital city in the world.

Initially I would like the reader to ignore my opponents quote, "I can never understand why Londoners fail to see that they live in the most wonderful city in the world, It is far more beautiful and interesting than Paris." Statements such as this could be attributed at any number of cities. It says nothing about the real value of London, however it actually contradicts my opponents main argument; it must be challenging to have such courteous taxi drivers when the majority of them believe to be in an inferior city! I would also like the reader to dismiss my opponents suggestion that I have elevated the argument past capital cities. I have only used capital cities in my argument and therefore, his whole third paragraph must be reneged. Concerning Jerusalem, my opponent states, "… please specify which cultural aspects of Jerusalem APART from it religious significance, …" In this my opponent shows his unwitting; culture is not easily group into discrete groups but actually a continuous array of interacting aspects of the society at large. This underscored by my opponent himself in his insistence that the reader not miss the word 'apart'. By agreeing with my analysis of culture; you are acknowledging that my opponent's view of culture is flawed. You must dismiss any argument he makes based on said views. Religion has dominated art, music, theater, etc... Jerusalem is home to Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque[wiki]. I hope these mega-structures, know worldwide to hundreds of millions, do not discourage him from talking about his big clock. I would go further to illustrate the diversity of art due to religion or Paris as an artistic powerhouse alone, but that is not required. My opponent has said nothing of value to merit London, other than his own experiences with nice people. Reader, there are many people with many nice stories about the cities they lived and visit. There are many pleasant stories, but there is only one greatest capital in the world. London it is not.
London is the best capital city in the world.

I will make clear that my opponents opinion of London is fueled by nothing more than nationalism. This is most underscored by his statement, "I want the person who challenges me to be equally passionate of their CAPITAL city." I'm afraid I cannot live up to my opponents request, but don't fret. I will not require passion for my capital city, Washington, or limit myself to it to prove my point that: London is not the best capital city in the world. In his statement, "I view London [as] the best city in the world from a cultural standpoint." Leads me to believe that my opponent has much yet to view. Take Jerusalem for instance. "Holy land" to three religions, Jerusalem, is inarguably more culturally and ethnically diverse than London-- having Arabic is the largest ethnic group of 42 percent as opposed to London's dominating 70 percent White [1][2]. I don't intend the reader to interpret diversity as the only gauge of cultural strength; I will leave that to Jerusalem's extensive history of war due to its own cultural significance. I know what your thinking, "I agree Jerusalem is culturally stronger, but I specifically said CAPITAL city." Let it be known that London itself is not the official capital city of the U.K. but rather the de facto capital since the monarchy[3]. Jerusalem having the same status, due to political tensions in the region, is a valid contender. Anytime. My opponent all but surrenders to the fact that London is not the economic leader. Ranked sixth in the world, behind the capitals: Tokyo and Paris[4]. The numbers are clear. What of my capital city Washington? Politically it is the strongest city in the world. With the most embassies and diplomats in the world, Washington is home to the largest, in volume and magnitude, decisions made on earth. Lacking leadership politically, economically, and culturally, one would question how my opponent reached his conclusion in the first place. But looking past the numbers, London is in fact a First-Tier city, powerful in its own right; one might be fooled into considering it's dominance. Especially to those within its respective country. [1]-http://www.cbs.gov.il... [2]-http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk... [3]-http://www.theworldinphotos.info... [4]-http://www.itweek.co.uk...=
London is the best capital city in the world.

By best city in the world, I do not mean, most economically important. I view london the best city in the world from a cultural standpoint. If you live in london you begin to realise that what ever you want, london has to offer. The blend of victorian housing and ultra modern sky scrapers and office towers, means London has an image that is unique. The cultural diversity, though not liked by all londoners, creates a charm, that I think is also unique to this fantastic city! Please challenge my ideas, I want the person who challenges me to be equally passionate of their CAPITAL city. I naturaly expand on my argument when somebody challenges me!
Ragnar_rahl should join Social's tourny

I thank Ragnar for starting this debate. To hold such a definition of "should," as my opponent has suggested would require that I assume that he makes choices based upon such a value system (if he obtains more value than he spends, he'll do it). If that is not the case, such a definition for "should" is meaningless. As he presented this definition of should, I will make that assumption, but before presenting my arguments, I will allow my opponent to confirm this. Or if I am mistaken, he can present what system he does use for making decisions (of which, his past actions would have to support). So I will allow him to indicate if this is correct or not. Thank you,
Ragnar_rahl should join Social's tourny

I have been presented with this proposition on my profile by the technically challenged user, Pro. This question was, unusually for Debate.org presented de novo, I have no directly applicable precedent on which to evaluate it, as such, I shall leave Pro to provide his arguments and then address them. I presume by "Should" he means that I would achieve more value than I would expend by joining such a tourney, and invite him to notify if I have misconstrued his intent.
Ragnar_rahl should join Social's tourny

"The debates of this tournament are actually entirely determined by the members, from the resolution, to the definitions, to who is PRO and CON, to when to start."They are determined by mutual consent of the members-- on the grounds that they must consent to something, and if they don't there is a rule determining the resolution for them, from their big issues.This does not provide the same level of determination that not committing to a tournament does."We should also note that based on the high number of debates that my opponent has done, we can conclude that he has a rather flexible schedule (to be able to complete that many debates) and a rather wide interest of topics to debate (since not all his debates have been on the same topic). "This does not mean I am always interested in all of those debates. One may want to discuss a given topic at one time and not another, perhaps one's questions are fresh in one's mind from something one has read. And simply because I have flexibility does not mean I ought expend it upon nothing. "While it is true that my opponent could challenge any of the members of the tourny at any time, he should be aware that many members hold a tourny debate to a higher personal standard than a normal debate. As such, by challenging any of them while the tourny is going on would be the DDO equivilent of getting sloppy seconds"Why should I be aware of it? First demonstrate this statement to be true enough that "aware of it" means something, then show that them holding a debate to a high personal standard right now is more valuable than either keeping the above values I've noted I would give up in the course of the tourney or waiting till the tourney is done (as you've noted, I have 2 debates in the last 4 months. Clearly I'm in no hurry).
Ragnar_rahl should join Social's tourny

"Notably, unlike normal debates, a tournament commits me to multiple debates ahead of time, reducing schedule flexibility, and may cause me to take a debate that does not break the interest threshold such that I would take it at this time were it in a challenge queue or otherwise fairly organically available (such as this debate, which was in response to a profile comment). This feature of a tournament is a negative value as compared to investing the time in normal debates." The debates of this tournament are actually entirely determined by the members, from the resolution, to the definitions, to who is PRO and CON, to when to start. So you still hold the power to mold debates to match with your interest and schedule. If the tournament was on a more strict time table and/or resolution table, as my tournament will be (meaning my pre-IDC run, not this one). We should also note that based on the high number of debates that my opponent has done, we can conclude that he has a rather flexible schedule (to be able to complete that many debates) and a rather wide interest of topics to debate (since not all his debates have been on the same topic). This shows that, while it can still be viewed as a negative feature, it is quite minimal, and so only needs minimal positives to over ride it. "I do not knowingly seek to have debates merely because the opponent is one I am unused to, and even if it is a value, I could challenge any person on the tournament list without the drawbacks of the tournament." Of course not, I was merely showing that you have no issue with debating with new people that you haven't debated before. New members have a much larger risk of not completing debates, not presenting in depth arguments, and various other negative attributes (this is not to say that new members are infearior, merely statistically more likely to bail or do poorly on their first debate). You have shown that you view that risk as acceptible given other factors (like the resolution and OP argument). While it is true that my opponent could challenge any of the members of the tourny at any time, he should be aware that many members hold a tourny debate to a higher personal standard than a normal debate. As such, by challenging any of them while the tourny is going on would be the DDO equivilent of getting sloppy seconds (though many members are quite capable of not being too "sloppy" when giving seconds). So it comes down to if entering something that will yeild higher quality is more of a positive than being partially tied down to a schedule is a negative.
Ragnar_rahl should join Social's tourny

Notably, unlike normal debates, a tournament commits me to multiple debates ahead of time, reducing schedule flexibility, and may cause me to take a debate that does not break the interest threshold such that I would take it at this time were it in a challenge queue or otherwise fairly organically available (such as this debate, which was in response to a profile comment). This feature of a tournament is a negative value as compared to investing the time in normal debates. In order for Pro's contention to be true that I am acting on similar expeced value in taking the tournament as I am in the debates I have taken in the past, he must demonstrate an offsetting concern, some unique positive feature of this tournament. Does it have prize money for example, as the only debate tournament I have entered in the past on DDO did? I do not knowingly seek to have debates merely because the opponent is one I am unused to, and even if it is a value, I could challenge any person on the tournament list without the drawbacks of the tournament.
Super smash bros brawl isn't the worst smash bros game

Good point, all around. Brawl's disappointment and ruthless expectations may of had a big part on why it's mostly hated now in days. It doesn't make it bad game. The game was just a big victim of over hyping. When, this game was in development the internet was absolutely losing their crap about it. It seem like it was going to be the best game of this decade! And, while the removal of some beloved characters for clones does hurt. We did get some new characters like you mentioned. Some new mechanics that innovated the smash experience. While, melee was for the hardcore and competitive type player. Brawl is for the people who are just looking to have fun. Now, i think brawl and melee are on the same level. Just that brawl had the unfair problem of being way over hyped.
Super smash bros brawl isn't the worst smash bros game

Now don't get me wrong I love the Super Smash Bros franchise but I would have to say that Brawl would have to be the worst out of all four of the Smash Bros games. This comes from a guy who firmly believes that Melee is the best in the series. Let me explain why Brawl is the worst in the series. Honestly, I probably wouldn't have gotten into the whole Super Smash Bros series if it wasn't for Melee. It was such an incredible step up from the original. More characters, stages, events. Overall it felt that everything that was missing was there. But when I look at Brawl and compare it to Melee, it gave me what I didn't expect. While the additions of Sonic and Solid Snake were cool, the game seemed way too focused on the story mode which while I admit was pretty cool adding the second player option in story mode, it seemed as if it was more focused on the story mode rather than the multiplayer. What kind of fighting game does that? Also I will admit that brawl does have more options and playing possibilities, I felt as if they weren't necessary. I would rather fight Mewtwo than try and collect every sticker (which mind you takes absolutely forever). The multiplayer fighting was strongest in the game, unless you consider it's online capabilities. I am not a gamer who judges a game by it's online functionality, but when a game focuses alot of their time and effort on their online, I had never played an online mode of Smash because my Wii just wouldn't connect to the servers. Brawl felt like a game, where the developers thought everything would run smoothly without errors, so they made the game without so many "check ups". Then, when the errors and bugs started to show, the developers just kind of cut corners and skipped important moments. And while this game came out first, when you compare Brawl, to Mario Kart Wii, a game that was very focused on multiplayer, it doesn't even stand up. Mario Kart Wii had it's share of problems, but Brawl's online was ruthless. I did think that the addition of the Final Smash was cool, but only for some specific characters. Some characters' final smashes would be so stupid and just kind of take the fun away from the powerup (Mr. Game and Watch/Jigglypuff) Plus the removal of Mewtwo always struck me hard. I understood the removal of Dr. Mario and Pichu as they were clone characters (Getting a little to close Ganondorf) but Mewtwo was an original character. And you can say "Oh they were trying to promote Lucario for the new Pokemon game" but Lucario is more of a clone of Mewtwo than anything else. The same goes for Ike and Roy. Have you ever played Project M with the two characters and felt like they were the same character? Well, I have. And look what started to come out after that happened: A new Fire Emblem game with Ike in it. Melee is a whole lot faster paced as well while Brawl is simply just too floaty and slow.
Super smash bros brawl isn't the worst smash bros game

Smash bros brawl is not the worst game from the super smash bros series. Even, tho melee is more for competitive people. Brawl is way more funnier. In the more characters, extra options, and more variety. And, yes all smash bros games are good. But, i got to say 64 is the worst. Even, though it has the excuse to be the worst because it's the oldest. It doesn't mean it's better than melee. Or worst than melee because of some tripping.
Swimming is sea is better than swimming in the swimming pool.

? I'm not sure if I understand your point nor if you understand mine... I'm saying it is the persons choice to go as far as they want. If a lifeguard tells them to stop then that would mean the beach is safer. So it's either: The persons choice. Or: A lifeguard tells them to stop. It is proven. If a sign literally says enter at your own risk when a lifeguard if not on duty, (Which my beach does) then it is obviously proven. You have not disproved anything. All you're saying is that a lifeguard could stop someone from swimming to far, which actually helps my point. If they go to far, the lifeguard will tell them to go in. If a lifeguard is not there, then it is the persons fault for drowning. What "Chemicals" are you talking about? You do realize people actually put chlorine in the water of a swimming pool.
Swimming is sea is better than swimming in the swimming pool.

Thanks to Pro.Now the proof that you have give us is a link of the health benefit of swimming in the sea,but actually there are lots of disadvantage. 1.Unsafe 2.Lots of chemical Now as you have tell that "It is the persons choice to go where he/ or she goes in the water" but at last what happen? lifeguard say "hey don't go that far" or kind of.Right? Some of a beach even have a punishment by pay.So the evidence of entering of your own risk is unproven evidence. Your turn now Pro!
Swimming is sea is better than swimming in the swimming pool.

Thanks Con. His entire point is based on safety, He (I'm going to assume it's a he because of the profile picture) is saying that swimming in a pool is better because lifeguards can see you more easily. 1.There is not a guarantee of huge waves drowning a victim 2. Signs often say: Enter at your own risk. This mean you are responsible for your own self. If it does not say that, then a LifeGaurd would be there. It is the persons choice to go where he/ or she goes in the water. In the video, the victims obviously swam very far out. That was the choice that they made. Pools are often not that big or deep, meaning that the people swam out of the limits a pool would have. If they had stayed closer to shore, they could've still swam around and enjoyed themselves. The sea is not unsafe, but people do have the ability to make it 3. Pools are heated, and cold water swimming is good for you. http://thenextchallenge.org...
Swimming is sea is better than swimming in the swimming pool.

Now you have give us 2 links for the proof. The askville is a link for asking people's opinion, which is not an evidence to tell that swimming is oceans is actually good for you. Let me tell you another statement why you should swim in a pool: Imagine you swim in the ocean far away from the land,then you need a help. Not much or anyone can see you.They could see only a tiny spot of you . While you swim in a pool, everyone couls see you and help you super fast too! So that's why this house believe that "swimming in the pool is better than swimming in the sea" Extra:I am Thai, but type in english is better, because everyone can know what you are telling. Good luck, pro
Swimming is sea is better than swimming in the swimming pool.

Respect to the audience.This house believes that swimming in the swimming pool is better than swimming is sea,because it's safer plus it have less chemical than sea,because the chemical in pool is just only chorine and its use to take away the bacteria,but in the sea,lots of chemical in sea are come from waste.so that's why this house believes that swimming in the swimming pool is better than swimming is sea Here is a link from a statement of "swimming pool is better than swimming is sea,because it's safer" http://youtu.be...
The Federal Reserve Should be Abolished

1. Google docs are not a violation of conduct 2. character limit is 20,000.I am arguing that the US government should abolish the Federal Reserve System while my opponent is arguing that the Federal Reserve is beneficial and should be kept. I must show that the Fed serves no beneficial purpose to our economy ad that it is bad for the economy, or that another system would help the economy better (groiunds for replacing it with something else, constituting abolishing it)My opponent must argue that the Federal Reserve provides some legitimate benefit for our economy that another system couldn't do equal or bettter to. By system I mean the structure of a central bank as we know it.