BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Freezing time would destroy many aspects of the world

I did not clarify 'many' yet, so I will say it means more than 1 aspect of the universe.I also did not clarift 'destroyed' yet, so I will say it means ruined or not working. Also non-existent.You disproved two of my points, and I concede to those. But the third argument stays possible. Two aspects would be destroyed. You conceeded to my point that you would be unable to UNFREEZE time, thus making the aspect of time destroyed because it would not exist anymore. Furthermore, my argument about the unfreezing of time also brings up life. You said death takes time, so doesn't life? Therefore, you are not alive when you are frozen in time. Thus, nothing is. Therefore, the aspect of life is destroyed. Lastly, you are destroying the aspects when you press the button, not after. Once you press the button, all life and time would be non-existent. You do not destroy these things WHILE you are freezing time. So no, this is not unwinnable.Sorry for this short argument. Tests coming up, ya know? Thanks for the debate!!!!
The internet is fundamentally insecure

My opponent has completely disregarded my arguments. "i have demonstrated how the internet has met con's definition of insecure, nowhere in the definition does it state and has feelings." Read my argument. Doubt that you did, since you have yet to refute what I have previously stated. "The internet is subject to fears. For example i fear that the Internet is hacked. It is also subject to doubts. I doubt that the internet can proses all the connections we are giving it (remember internet includes local routers)" I have already refuted this. My opponent has failed to either read or understand my arguments. "in order for con to show that the internet fits criteria one he must negate both of these points" Wrong. You have to affirm that the Internet is insecure in its entirety. That's your BoP, and you have failed. "2. In order to show that the internet does not meet this criteria con must show that the internet is self confident and self assured clearly the internet fits con's definition of insecure, the fact it has no emotions is irrelevant." I have argued this point and my argumentation still stands. My opponent has refuted nothing of my last post. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.
The internet is fundamentally insecure

i have demonstrated how the internet has met con's definition of insecure, nowhere in the definition does it state and has feelings. to repeat my argument: Con's criteria for something to be insecure have two elements 1. it must be subject to fears and/or doubts 2. it must not be self confident and/or self assured The internet is subject to fears. For example i fear that the Internet is hacked. It is also subject to doubts. I doubt that the internet can proses all the connections we are giving it (remember internet includes local routers) in order for con to show that the internet fits criteria one he must negate both of these points 2. In order to show that the internet does not meet this criteria con must show that the internet is self confident and self assured clearly the internet fits con's definition of insecure, the fact it has no emotions is irrelevant.
The internet is fundamentally insecure

I would like the audience to note that my opponent clearly states that he accepts my definition. The definition specifically refers to a person's emotions / character. Since the Internet does not have emotions or personality, your arguments about fear and doubt do not apply. For example: Joan is insecure because she is subject to fear. This is when the term is used correctly. The Internet is not a human; thus, it cannot be given humanlike qualities. My opponent agrees that the Internet has no feelings or emotions and states that the Internet cannot be self confident or self assured. However, since it has no emotions or feelings, the term "insecure" cannot be applied to it. My position is that "insecure" cannot be applied to the Internet, and I have proven that. This also fills my requirement for negating the resolution. Thus, my opponent has conceded the debate. Thank you.
The internet is fundamentally insecure

not what i had in mind for insecure, but i'll accept your definition. The internet is subject to fears by many people over the content that gets transmitted, as well as its security level (in terms of being hacked, not emotianal) The internet has also been a subject of doubt (i doubt its security level) not self-confident or assured the semantics of this line state not self confident nor self assured. as you pointed out the internet does not have feelings or emotions so how can it possibly be self confident or self assured
The internet is fundamentally insecure

I negate the resolution, "The Internet is fundamentally insecure. " I agree with my opponent's definitions of "Internet" and "fundamentally. " However, my opponent did not define "insecure. " Since this round is for clarifications of definitions, I shall present my definition of "insecure. " It is only fair, since my opponent was able to define two key terms and left this term out in the open. insecure - subject to fears, doubts, etc. ; not self-confident or assured . http://dictionary.reference.com... The Internet does not have feelings or emotions. Thus, it cannot be subject to fears or doubts; it cannot have a lack of confidence or assurance. I have negated the resolution. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.
should short people be forwards in soccer

Since Pro has not established any rules, here are a couple guidelines to follow:1) Be polite and respectful. Avoid the ad hominem logical fallacy.2) Sources are not necessary, but recommended. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Pro's resolution is that people who are short have better acceleration and running speeds than tall people, who do not have good acceleration and are not speedy. Therefore, short people should play left, center, and right striker in the sport soccer, while the tall people should play left, center, and right defense because they lack the aforementioned traits. As Con, I will argue that speed and acceleration are not mutually exclusive when it comes to tall and short people, but rather that it all varies depending on the physical fitness of the person. Burden of proof is on Pro to provide evidence and/or sound reasoning to support their resolution. Definitions Tall: Greater in height than the average person, building, etc. [1]Short: Having little height; not tall [2]Acceleration: The act or process of moving faster or happening more quickly; the act or process of accelerating [3]Speed: The rate at which someone or something moves or travels [4]The Simple Logic & SyllogismIt is factual that not all people are the same, both physically and mentally. Pro's fatal flaw is that they fail to consider this. Physical ability in terms of agility is not mutually exclusive to short people. There can be, and there are countless cases where tall people can run and accelerate quicker than short people or even average people. These physical traits vary broadly among the population, and can be attained by most. Pro is arguing by stereotype (to be clear, the stereotype that tall people are clunky and sluggish and short people are quick and agile). Here's a simple syllogism to demonstrate the reasoning better:(P1) Tall people may or may not have excellent acceleration and running speeds. (P2) Short people may or may not have excellent acceleration and running speeds. (C) Therefore, acceleration and running speeds are traits that vary between people of different heights. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------In conclusion, positions for players regarding the sport of soccer should be based individually on each player's demonstrated abilities, not their height. If there is a short player who is sluggish and not in the best physical shape, it is more logical to place them on defense. If a tall player is agile and in great physical shape, it is more logical to place them in a striker or midfielder position. Vote Con. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
RESOLVED: Globally speaking, imperialism should be allowed

Interesting enough, my opponent forfeits. Not only does he forfeit this round, but he also resigned from our debating community. I wish him best of luck in all of his future ventures, and ask you to vote CON. You should vote CON for more than my opponent's forfeit but also for his lack of upholding his burden, which he simply states as 'highly overrated', the burden of proof is a common debate manner in which my opponent fails to uphold. Furthermore, he expresses his elitism with his statement about how all other nations are inferior...I hope he is joking, because this site is open to people from many other countries, like Canada and Austrailia, I don't want them to believe that we Americans are so full of ourselves and prideful. I belief every country is equally important and deserve to be treated humanely. Extend ALL my points and please vote legitamately in negation to this resolution. Post: His video is SOO unoriginal. :D -Alexander
RESOLVED: Globally speaking, imperialism should be allowed

Well, I am resigning from Debate.org. It takes too much time to write an elaborate case, and I see that I am not apt in the field of online debate. "Please prove this claim. As a counter-claim I'd like to say third world country's do not have the expenses to carry out a successful imperialistic reign. (ex. Sierra Leone)" Who cares??? They are inherently inferior and should be annexed. Vote PRO because the burden of truth is highly overrated. To end my case I give you the gift of life... http://youtube.com...
RESOLVED: Globally speaking, imperialism should be allowed

For the sake of this debate, I'd like country, nation and society to be considered the same, instead of country being the land and society being the populous. Since I am in a time constraint, my case will be brief. "You are saying that a country has needs BECAUSE it is responsible?" A country does have obligations due to it only being a country if it has a populous. If the country is to remain "alive" it must protect and secure its populous. Now that I have clarified my main contention, I will describe the direct benefits and reasons imperialism should be allowed. 1) Imperialism deters overpopulation. As a country lives, its populous grows exponentially. For a country to protect and secure its citizens to insure its own continuity, it must expand for more land. This way the populous can thrive. 2) Imperialism deters conflict. If a country is to insure the protection and security of its peoples, the country must thwart all threats. Any adjacent country has the same needs as the country itself, and will fight to accomplish these needs. Since every country is capable of imperialism, it should be allowed as globalization is just another impossible idealistic view.
RESOLVED: Globally speaking, imperialism should be allowed

Your thesis: "Since a country is like an organism, it should express its right to utilize imperialistic methods in order to survive" My thesis: "Since a country is interested in self-preservation, it should not undergo anything that strongly threatens its national security" Funnybrad333, I understand what you are saying, surprisingly I agree with most of it as well. Unfortunately, I noticed a few errors within your logic that continues to get worse throughout your case. Your first point is interesting, I have no clue for as to why you are talking about the role a country plays. A country by definition is the territory of a nation. I don't see how a territory has the capabilities of undergoing these imperialistic movements that your advocating. A country is a territory, it has absolutely no obligations. Now, i'll break this down to make what I'm saying more clear. You wrote that "A country is like any organism, it has needs. A country has many needs because it is responsible for its constituents." Yes I agree, a country has needs, as well as all other components of nature. But there is a difference between what something needs and what something is obligated to do. You are saying that a country has needs BECAUSE it is responsible? I have no clue how that works out. So I urge you to clarify. You also wrote that "For the country to survive, it must do all these things, as a country without constituents is a barren, desolate place" Your logic here is flawed once again, country's do not die, whatismore inanimate objects CANNOT die. A country that is barren or doesn't contain a populous is not necessarily a bad thing for the country itself. What I have stated above is enough already for the voters to vote in negation(CON), because I have properly shown how your premise (a country having needs because it is responsible) is flawed. This point invalidates your entire thesis. But in interest of argumentation I'll continue. Later in your case you create the stance that "Nations should have the right to utilize imperialistic methods in order to survive, as the fittest nation should survive." This logic is muted by the fact that whenever a nation undergoes any type of utilization of imperialistic methods, it threaten its national security. If a nation is threatening its national security it is, in effect, not upholding its first obligation, to protect it's constituents. Remember, you gave that responsibility to a country. You wrote, "A country has many needs because it is responsible for its constituents. Some of these include...Protecting its constituents..." Insofar as movement towards imperialism threatens national security because such movement usually leads to war, a country's first obligation is not upheld. You are being inconsistent whenever you advocate imperialistic movement and self-preservation simultaneously. For that reason I urge voters to vote in favor of CON.
RESOLVED: Globally speaking, imperialism should be allowed

A country is like any organism, it has needs. A country has many needs because it is responsible for its constituents. Some of these include: 1) Protecting its constituents 2) Housing its constituents 3) Feeding its constituents 4) And all other forms of aiding its constituents For the country to survive, it must do all these things, as a country without constituents is a barren, desolate place. Darwin came up with the origin of species, a theory that all animals mutated and evolved from each other in the process of survival. By this law, the fittest organism to survive will survive, while the rest die, which in turn makes a generation of fitter organisms. This spawned the idea of social darwinism, the same theory yet related to humanity, as humans and societies must act in order to survive. Imperialism is Darwin's "survival of the fittest" philosophy in action, yet with humanity. Nations should have the right to utilize imperialistic methods in order to survive, as the fittest nation should survive.
Military Style Rifles (Stay Legal)

You say we do not "need" them, you are probably correct...We want them. Who are other people to tell us what we "need" and what we "want." We are told that a simple handgun will suffice for self-defense, and it seems quite alright, but the fact is, the same logic can be applied to other things in life. Why do people "need" a BMW that costs over 60k, when they can just buy a car that costs 10k and gets them from point A to point B safely. The answer is simply, because they can. They don't need a fancy BMW, they want one because the have the money for it. Anti-gun activists say "The 2nd amendment was written over 250 years ago and does not apply to now" well I will tell you two things, and two things only: first, the same right that allows you to speak against guns is the same right that allows me to speak for gun rights. Second, if that is so, then we obviously do not need: Human Rights, Free Speech, Protection from Self-Incrimination, and many more things that were written such long time ago. When going about making new laws about "Gun Control" we need to do so with a clear mindset and not with a mind that is corrupt with emotion and illogical thoughts. Lastly, for you Anti-gun activists, I do not mind listening to you for an hour, but when we start talking do not interrupt us or ignore us. Not all Pro-gun activist are crazies, in-fact, those are just the odd ones out of the crowd. God Bless America!
Military Style Rifles (Stay Legal)

As you see my contender has most certainly thrown in the towel (given up). As you see the logic I have presented has most certainly given him/her no other choice, but to give up and ask me to go eat McDonald's. To further my debate, I would like to explain why people hate guns. They hate guns because the have the capability to take a life, which is how most of them see it; but it is not the case. As you have heard before, there is more than one side to anything. With guns, you can either take a life, or save a life. But as always, it is up to the person, not the firearm. When someone misspells a word do they blame writing utensil or themselves? They blame themselves, and the same follows with car accidents which takes more lives than guns do by a factor of of 40 times, yet we do not ban cars or anything related to them. If I (hypothetically) were to crash a car into a person, would it be my fault or the cars fault if simply was being negligent and irresponsible? It would be my fault. Unless the accelerator were to jam and I was unable to un-jam it; but even then, the car would have not moved if I had not pushed on the accelerator. Being so, I am sure I could still sue the car company for negligence in reporting the faulty part- still a human error. To break it down, yes, guns are made to injure, mame, and kill, but as law abiding citizens we do want to do that. Guns need to stored safely and kept away from people with mental disorders. We need to realize the potential of a fire and respect that. Lastly, if I were a criminal, why in the heck would I buy a gun legally? Does that even make sense? If a wrong-doer wants to reek havoc, then I am sure they will illegally obtain a firearm instead of a legal way. The black market is full of these and banning or making it harder for the law abiding citizen to acquire I just moronic and senseless. I thank my contender for his response, even if it was short and humorous.
Military Style Rifles (Stay Legal)

I am glad you have accepted my challenge and I look forward to debating with you. You see it comes down again to the "want" and "need" scenario. I cannot speak for all of America's gun hobbyists and so on. What I can say is that most people feel the need to own an AR-15 or other similar models only due to the fact they have the money and they simply can get one. It is more of a hobby/investment to own a military style weapon. I have seen great law-abiding citizens take their rifles and go to range and shoot them; just for fun and no other reason. 1. Average arm length I have found to be is around 32 inches (could be longer or shorter) 2. Average AR-15 is 16-20 inches, when in your arm (tucked back into your shoulder) it is usually shorter than your entire arm length. 3. Average magazine capacity for AR-15 is 15-30 rounds. 4. Average handgun is about 4-6 inches long 5. Average handgun magazine capacity is 9-10 So what it really comes down to is the amount of bullets that can be stored in one magazine, but if someone really wants to do damage, all they have to do is buy more magazines or bigger ones, which is really easy. I am all for restricting large capacity magazines, who needs over 20-30 rounds. If you really think about it, a handgun is a better choice for any wrong doing (I do [not] condone violence) it is smaller, compact, lightweight, and gives more room for ammo. A AR-15 is big, clunky, heavy, and long in most cases. It really is a tragedy that those insolent people used AR-15s to kill those people, but in reality it is such a smaller fraction of what really goes on. The number of deaths per weapon type: 6,220 deaths by handguns (intentional and unintentional) 679 deaths by rifles, shotguns, and AR-15s (intentional and unintentional) The number of deaths per type of death: Suicide; 38,285 (any method) Accidents; 120,859 Smoking; 443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from second hand smoke) Alcohol; 25,000; (drinking and driving) Alcohol; 100,000 (total) When looking at all of this data, you can really see who the culprit (s) (are/is) To answer your question very simply is that people can buy AR-15s because it is their constitutional right to do so. Handguns are the ones needed to be more regulated than AR-15s, and legislators need to stop acting on emotion and more on logic. And if the other person has a military style rifle, does that simply mean you would have better odds than if you didn't have one? I say no. It is like insurance- some people buy outrageously large protection plans even if they are not needed. Again, it all comes back to the "needs" and "wants." No one can say what anyone needs or wants but only that person themselves. I bid you a fair day and I am anticipating your response.
Military Style Rifles (Stay Legal)

First of all, I think that any body in their right mind does not need military style rifles. What does the average person going do with one? The only excuse people have is that they can go shoot on the range with the range with them. You can't hunt with military style rifles therefore, you wouldn't need one. The only reason you would need a gun, is either for hunting game, or for safety. You don't need an AK-47 to protect your self, because what if the other person trying to "break in" had a military style rifle? Then you would be in bad luck because you can't protect your self from a AK-47.
An orange is better than a banana

1. Sourness You must have read it wrong. All of it was pomegranate, which is a very sour fruit. You may be asking, "What does this have anything to do with the topic? " I refuted the fact that sour foods do not heal. On to oranges, I, most of the times, heal from illness (minor) in a couple hours too. 2. 210% Eating five bananas won't make you feel great. To some people, eating a banana will cause stomach problems. . http://answers.yahoo.com... 3. Banana splits Disgusting. So you're telling me that slicing bananas on top of the turkey will make it taste good, right? Well, not really. I bet you know about those turning skewers. Once the turkey turns in a 93 degree angle, all the bananas fall off. They will just fall onto the coals. If it's on the grill, you would have black, grilled bananas. That's a bit disgusting. 4. Sugar Still, bananas have a higher sugar content. I win this point. 5. Coldness Huh. Must be the dumb old Wikipedia. You win this point. 6. Superman All fruits are equal. You eat a pomegranate, and you can also do what a banana can do. Not about cancer, but about like doing somersaults in an airplane, but, of course, we can't do that. 7. Tomatoes I win this point, I guess. 8. Plagiarized I plagiarized, you plagiarized. We both plagiarized. I'll ask a question to you that also refutes your argument,"Did you ask me for permission to reprint my work? " No. I suggest we both drop this topic. , please. 9. Bodies Yeah, I guess so. 10. Enjoyment Okay. Oranges contain over 80% of water. This means that oranges can be a replacement of water when you need it. 11. Peels No. People can also trip on orange peels too. You could also do the old trick: Orange peel toothpaste= tripping. Orange peels hate your enemies too. . http://www.erowid.org... 12. Muhammad Fine. You win this point. 13. Oranges are number 2 @#$%! Wow. I hate some sources. 14. Termites So, you agree with me, right? 15. NO BANANAS I meant banana being grown in countries. 16. Bananas My tomato plant died. Yeah. All thanks to the banana tree. Arguments 1. Voters Larztheloser should win this debate. I think I lost. Well, good luck to him on his future debates! However, please vote Pro on having the sources. Thank you. Merry Christmas to all the readers and to Larztheloser! Happy Hanukkah, if you are Jewish! See ya guys later! Have a happy Christmas vacation!