BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Quickfire Debate: Justice, Retribution, and Forgiveness

PrefaceThis is my first quickfire debate. My idea of "quick" is probably less rapid than other people's notions of the same. You will have 3 full hours to type up your argument; there are 6,000 characters per round. The goal is to focus on meaningful, substantive discourse rather than rely on source-spamming or the like. It's designed to test the alacrity of your wit and your ability to present cogent arguments under a time crunch.This debate is impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission, you automatically forfeit the debate. To accept, please apply in the comments. Voters on this debate must have at least 2500 ELO, as well.Full TopicRegarding criminal acts, justice can usually be obtained without the victim's forgiveness of the criminal.TermsThe definitions below are influenced by or excerpted from Socrates/Plato and Wikipedia.Justice - giving each their dueForgiveness - "Forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well. Forgiveness is different from condoning (failing to see the action as wrong and in need of forgiveness), excusing (not holding the offender as responsible for the action), pardoning (granted by a representative of society, such as a judge), forgetting (removing awareness of the offense from consciousness), and reconciliation (restoration of a relationship)."Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. In the interests of keeping the debate dialogue-centered, there is a cap of 6 new sources per round from each debater.4. No new arguments in the final round5. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere6. No trolling7. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. forgiveness is impossible, etc.)8. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions9. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate10. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round; Pro must ensure both debaters are ready at the time he accepts11. The BOP is on Pro to show the resolution to be true; Con must prevent Pro from doing that and offer some justice benefit to forgiveness12. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case and SummarizesR4. Con defends Con's Case and Summarizes, Pro waivesThanks......again to whomever accepts; I am looking forward to a truly challenging and enjoyable discourse!
Should parents allow their children to choose their own careers

Parents know more as they have seen the world. They know more as they have seen life more whereas children know more about the latest trend. Parents should allow their child to follow his or her dream but if they know that the career which they are choosing won't be a bright future then they should not allow it. They can choose a substitute for it. For example, painting and all other related won't give you a very high payoffs. If you want to waste your life as a drawing or craft teacher then the matter is different. In the future when you see your friend earning lots and you in penny, you will feel bad. So parents should not leave the entire decision on children. Parents should give guidance to their children when they need. So children should allow to choose their career with their parents proper guidance.
Should parents allow their children to choose their own careers

My knowledgeable opponent have you ever seen this film - 3 idiots. It's a comedy film I agree, but not only to make film humorous but also to make youth to understand. And it totally depends on career. Career is much more that having a job or earning a living. It is a series of roles played by a person. In a career you can feel that your abilities are being properly used, that the work is worth doing, that it is interesting. It is necessary that a person must make his or her own career choice so that one can choose what matches with their ability, their values and interests in life. Talking of parents making career choice for their children is unacceptable. It is disastrous to choose for a child what he does not have the ability to do just because it carries a big name. My worthy opponent let us remember that the level of children we address in this talk are not infants but adolescents. To be precise our focus is on teenagers, or children in secondary school. Although they are still dependents, they have gained enough experience from their schooling and from our society to make their own career choice. Children in secondary school know their areas of best performance and interest. This is a good guide for choosing a career. Their experience and tests in variety of subjects they learnt at school help them to assess their ability. The career choice of a student who performs very well in Arts subjects or Social sciences but poorly in natural sciences cannot be the medical profession. His experience with these subjects indicate that his career choice should be in the Arts or in the social sciences. Some children want to do something terrible with their lives such as prostitution or murdering people for money. It's not the possible reason for con because to make bad company, to do something wrong, it's only the child's fault, and parents should care their children. And caring means not to force for anything, just make sure that the child should understand you and do what you want. And at last but not the least.... Old men can make war, but it is children who will make history. So children need only a chance to gleam a hope to make a history, to make world a better sight............
Should parents allow their children to choose their own careers

I believe that everyone has the right to choose what they wish to do with their lives. Different people enjoy different things, and your job should honestly be something you love. If not, then you are definitely in the wrong field. And this is highlighted by the film released in 2010 - 3 idiots. Parents should always want their children best and for this they have to be supportive and have to give advice to their children for their career. They don't have to force them for anything.
Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer is worse than Modern Warfare's multiplayer.

1) Perks are better? Have you ever heard of One Man Army? Have you heard of Scrambler? One Man Army is useless unless you apply it to more than one class, wasting slots for your precious Sleight of Hand. Scrambler is detrimental to its own cause; jamming nearby enemies' radar only alerts them to your presence. Also on the subject of Sleight of Hand, extend my perk argument - Sleight of Hand drastically reduces time spent helplessly reloading thus enabling the player to spend more time shooting. Sleight of Hand Pro also increases the player's ability to be ready for accurate firing in a tight situation, giving the player a distinct advantage over another player. Sleight of Hand is quite an overpowered perk indeed, and I thank my opponent for helping me with my argument. 2) Kill streaks? The tactical nuke was only half-interesting the first time it happened to me and became boring after that. Also, have fun getting a 25 kill streak when you get shot from across the map (see my first contention) or killed by a Harrier/Stealth Bomber/Pavelow/AC-130/Attack Helicopter... Killstreaks are generally much harder to get in this game. I can easily manage 2 helicopters (7 kill streak) in the right situation on MW. 3) You do not get exp for "everything" as you get no EXP for walking, jumping, reloading, climbing ladders, stunning your enemies, flashing them, the list goes on ad nauseam. Your argument is inherently flawed because of your poor diction. And while you do attain EXP for many more things than you can in MW, you also need thousands more EXP to level up in MW2. That being said, I have already asserted that levelling up is inherently worthless because players throw away their levels and unlocks for the sake of a new 50 pixel by 50 pixel .gif icon signifying the dozens of hours put into their game. 4) MW was hailed as "the most photorealistic game ever" and graphics don't contribute to a multiplayer experience - ask any Counter-Strike 1.6 player how much he cares about graphics. And your post script? Clearly asserts that you do not care about this game or your arguments, thus voiding them all, thus conceding all of them. Also, the maps are awful and are easily a contributor to the ridiculous frustration presented by MW2's lackluster multiplayer experience.
Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer is worse than Modern Warfare's multiplayer.

1) The perks are sooo much better. Like, I mean, Slight of Hand Pro? I'd apply some of my baby gravy over that. There's something magical about the game when you realize that you pull up your sniper scope in half a second. 2) Kill streaks. They're so good. I mean, tactical nukes? F*ck. 3) You get exp for everything and there's this recognition system for important sh*t you do. So people will actually care when after you've spent 6 minutes spraying at a helicopter and finally manage to shoot it down. That is, after you've died 100 times, f*cking noob. 4) The graphics? They're sooo good. I decided to stop streaming the good stuff off my laptop and instead just turn on my Xbox and let the graphical goodness poor through my 60 inch monster. P.S. I fu*king hate this game.
Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer is worse than Modern Warfare's multiplayer.

MW2 should be called Call of Camping: Modern Camping 2. Everyone camps and is stupid. Nobody plays fair. And the perks are either OP (scavenger) or useless (one man army, anyone? ) The maps are crap. You can't go anywhere without being no-scoped from across the map by some guy with his WA2K. Also there's no point to leveling up because once you actually hit the max level and get the AK (otherwise known as the best gun ever) you're about to prestige anyway and you basically have to prestige because otherwise you're a noob. In short, MW2 is gay. Except the graphics are cool, and the spec ops and campaign are lulzy as heck. But we're not debating that.
Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer is worse than Modern Warfare's multiplayer.

1) Extend my topicality argument which went conceded coming out of my opponent's last rebuttal. It doesn't matter if Scrambler is a crappy perk, there are still all the other perks available that dominate, i.e., Sleight, Stopping, Ninja, Cold Blooded, Hardline, Commando, etc, etc. The perks have a net increase in effectiveness. Moving on. 2) I'm sorry you don't have any friends to play with on Team Deathmatch. All you're doing in your wall of text is raging about how stupid your teammates are, however you fail to realize that Modern Warfare 2 requires people to have their mics put on gamechat as opposed to party chat. Every Xbox comes with a mic and a fat percentage of people use their mics, all you need to do is talk. 3) It doesn't matter what level Cold-Blooded and Stingers have to be unlocked at. If all else fails, just break the rules and camp in a building for 30 seconds. Oh wait, the game IS Camping in a Corner 2 after all. Seriously, don't run out in the open when your opponent calls in a killstreak reward. All of them with the exception of the stealth bomber are announced in game and even with the stealth bomber, all you have to do is have your volume turned on and you can hear it as loud as day. Also, it's not hard to notice when a third of the sky has just turned into a weird, black triangular pattern. 4) The graphical argument is yours. There was no analysis on either part describing why graphics actually matter so this argument has no weight in the debate. 5) No impact analysis: no weight. Stop being a smartass 6) Your argument was about the maps, not complaining about the killstreak rewards, which are balanced considering how many kills you need to get them. It's your team's fault for letting the same guy kill you 11 times in a row. Final words: My opponent has done one thing in this round and that is polishing his art of saying a whole lot without actually conveying anything. This only arguments about how imba the kill streak rewards are goes without warrant or significant impacts onto one's gaming experience. Even if you buy 1% of his argument, just extend my argument that if you're so bad to let them get that kill streak, then you deserve to be on lock down for the next 30 seconds. Oh the other hand, I've conveyed to you throughout the debate that Modern Warfare 2 is a new game that is ridiculously good. Also, please first play the multiplayer portion of the game past the first 30 levels before you attempt to make a "well-informed" decision on what kind of an experience it holds. You're doing it injustice. And also, I'm raping noobs with you so it's obviously gonna suck huge meatstick.
Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer is worse than Modern Warfare's multiplayer.

1) I would not consider a perk that alerts your enemies to your presence an increase in effectiveness, but if you do then be my guest. 2) In an online FPS (of which I know you are very very accustomed to) team communication and synergy are next to nonexistent in a group of randomly selected players; teamwork and therefore a general increase of success largely depends on hand picking a group of talented players to work with. Much of the play in generic matchmade games is therefore solo-oriented even though the scoring is team-based. I would hardly believe for an instant that anyone familiar with voice chat in games such as Modern Warfare 2 thinks that it is frequently (or even infrequently) used between strangers for effective communication and strategy. Therefore, I doubt strongly that I "deserve" to get nuked because of the incompetence of my "teammates. " On your second point, neither Cold-Blooded nor Stingers are available at the outset of the game, requiring much time and effort to unlock. Until then, have fun shooting your SCAR-H (with a total of 60 rounds) at that Pavelow. Also it's hardly a beautiful exchange when the AC-130 shoots down both of your Stingers. If you've unlocked them, that is. 3) The amount of EXP given for tanking bullets with the Riot Shield is negligible when considering that it's basically a consolation prize for you choosing to have the killing efficiency of, well, a big sheet of polycarbonate. 4) This argument is mine, simply extend my Counter-Strike 1.6 argument. If you don't accept CS1.6, think of Super Mario Bros (the original games), Final Fantasy VII, and a game I like to call The Legend Of Zelda: Ocarina Of Time. Graphics do not make a game. 5) "However, my in round disposition should have no value on the actual weight of the arguments I make. " Your in-round disposition also should have no place in the debate. 6) Please show me where I literally referred to the MW2 maps as being "sh*t" and I will concede this debate and also give you my copy of the game. I have, in fact, trained myself to check sightlines vertically, but I have not been taught the fine art of dodging a stealth bomber's carpet bombs. Also I hardly consider having to look up a "new aspect" in FPS unless the most recent one you've played was Doom. For my final focus, please consider the following: My opponent has allowed his pre-round bias to come into play during the round and used it as a crutch to ask the judging panel for special consideration on a debate that he accepted the challenge to. He has used personal knowledge of my gaming skill, exaggerated my weaknesses, and then used them against me in his arguments (which therefore are invalid against any other opponent).
Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer is worse than Modern Warfare's multiplayer.

1) Better (adj): of greater effectiveness than its predecessors. Because the perks have a net increase in effectiveness, or in your words, more overpowered, than the ones in Modern Warfare 2, the perks are "better". 2) It must be fun being on respawn all the time because if your team is bad enough to let the one person on the other team kill 25 of you in a row then you guys deserve to get nuked. Killstreaks are only harder in this game because you just made the transition to MW2 from CoD4 or whatever game you played most before you played MW2. It requires somewhat of a different skill set. Also, most kill streaks will not affect you if you simply create a class dedicated to taking them out. It's not that difficult: Cold Blooded and Stingers, throw in +200 exp or however much they give you for shooting sh*t down and that's what you get out of that beautiful exchange. 3) The point I was making was that the amount of things you DO get exp for exponentially increased. You get exp for tanking damage with your Riot Shield for f*ck's sake. All this means that it's all the more easier to level up, i.e., snipers get the twice the amount of exp for a "long range" headshot. And the only reason you need thousands of exp to level up in MW2 is because you're getting 10x or even 20x the exp you were getting in CoD4. Lern2maths. 4) The graphics are still sexy. 5) Once again, you fooled me into arguing for this trashy game called Modern Warfare 2. I'd say they did a worse job than Treyarch with CoD:WaW. I'm only playing devil's advocate and am probably doing a sh*t job because defending what you flat out hate is quite the challenge. However, my in round disposition should have no value on the actual weight of the arguments I make. 6) You perceive the maps as being "sh*t" because you are not used to checking the map for enemies vertically while CoD4 and most other games only teach you to swipe the map horizontally. Let's be a little more open to new aspects introduced into a genre of gaming.
DDO OT Final: US hegemony is desirable.

To clear up a few general facts before the debate starts. My opponent agrees to these things when she accepts: -Hegemony in this debate means over all dominance economically, militarily, and culturally. It does not mean that the US has ultimate power or can do whatever it wants, but rather that the extent of its power is of a far greater scope than other nations. -In the status quo, the US has hegemony. -Desirable entails a real world application--that is, to affirm or negate we need explanatory analysis of how the change in the status quo (US hegemony) would effect the world. Standard rules apply. No silly semantics, shared burden of proof, no new arguments in the last round. My opponent can refute my case in her opening round if she wishes, but does so at her own risk given the shared burden of proof.
Western foreign policy should abandon attempts at universializing liberal values

Well, that resolution was a mouthful...Rules -BOP is on Pro-Follow the formay-Be civil.Terms:Foreign policy:A government's strategy in dealing with other nations. In this case, we define Western Foreign policy as being made by countries a part of or aligned with groups such as NATO and the EUAbandon: To give up or renounce completely.universalizing: To make univerisal, or to be globally recognized and upheld.Liberal values: Beliefs aligned with Liberalism, this includes classical Liberalism. Beliefs include: Democracy, individualism, secularism and unregulated freedom of speech.Format:R1: Acceptance onlyR2: Opening ArgumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: Closing arguments and counter rebuttals.
President Barack Obama is a Socialist.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods http://www.merriam-webster.com... Pesident Barack Obama is quickly turning America into a Socialistic State. He now has control over banks and car companies and will soon control healthcare and your thermostat. This all in a matter of 7 months. It's enough to make even Hugo Chavez blush. It's been proven time and time again in countries around the world that Socialism fails. End of story. No nation on Earth that has gone from Capitalism to Socialism has turned out better. I hate to see America go down the same path, but sadly it is. I welcome my opponent's viewpoints.
the democrats will win the house and maybe even the senate

Many people are walking away from the democrat party, As it is becoming more and more radical. As the democrats openly call for violence and harassment for people they disagree with, Many people are seeing this as a red flag and notice that they need to get the crazy SJW's out of the senate. Trump is doing a great job for the economy and has done nothing treasonous. Republicans have been waiting for a great leader like this that won't take hits from the media but fight back and expose hypcrts
the democrats will win the house and maybe even the senate

It is called the #walkaway movement. There is no evidence of collusion, And this is just another sign of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is one of the sole reasons people are walking away, Because of crazy SJW's and violence. There leaders are crazy like crazy Maxine waters, Who is opening supporting violence against republicans. The tolerant left, Eh? We will find out in the primaries. See you there ;0
the democrats will win the house and maybe even the senate

Democrats are angry, That is pretty obvious, They are energized, That is also pretty self evident, What isnt self evident is that they are walking away, Could you provide some evidence of that? I havent seen any thing on that at all, I seea lot about how angry everone is at Trump with his collusion with the enemies of this nation, And dirty dictators. I read about even Repblicans like George Will urging people to vote Democrat. He thrives on the coat tails of the Obama economy.
the democrats will win the house and maybe even the senate

The left wing of the Democratic party is just that a wing, Most of the party remains tediously moderate, And I suppose thats all for the best in the end, America is a conservative nation, But moderately so. It is Trump that has embraced violence, and treason sellling national security to foreign states and wealthy sheiks, The alt right supports him. Let me ask a quation, Does anyone in anti fa vote democrat? They are anrchists 99% of them vote for no one, And the rest maybe they vote green.
Yo Momma! (Short And Fun Burn-Off)

This is a fun little debate to see who has the best Yo Momma burns. Rules: Anything NSFW is an automatic forfeit. If you wouldn't tell the joke to your children, don't post it. Swear words may be used, but nothing too far. Your momma so fat, that when she was sent to hell for making heaven fall, she was kicked out for putting out the flame!
My opponet should win this debate

Rebuttals: 1. According to this source here http://hello-homebody.com... I have won the debate. Now that I have sourced an unrelated source Pro should get the point. 2. As you have pointed out I constantly made grammatical errors so any smart voters would give Pro the grammar and selling point. 3. I did not refute your "entire" mathematical argument I merely reduced it's impact and for making that brilliant argument you should get the point. 4. Insults are meant to make others feel bad and no matter how you took it it is still bad behavior from me. Conduct goes to Pro.