BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barcelona are not the best club in the world

2nd Round- Please be serious! You have to fight me if you want this debate to go on. Please forgive me for my English because it is not good. Barcelona are not the best club in the world because they are not a good defensive side. You can praise Barca's great attacking style but this team lacks defensively. In defense only Puyol looks like a defensive player. All the other 9 players are focused on attack only. I still remember that night when Dynamo Kyiv bet them 2-1 and it was because of their weak defense. For a club to be immortal it has to be good in both department- Attack and the defence. Ever since Ruud Gullit left Barca, this club has only focused it attention on attack. You can look at the lineup and see that most of the players in Barcelona lineup are all attacking players. Barcelona are a team in decline ever since Ronaldinho left the club. Yes, they are winning titles but this club revolves around Lionel Messi. I don't think they will be remembered once Messi leaves this club. I hope my opponent says something in his defense.
Poor people are not beneficial to this country

Hello everyone! My name is Daniel Hwang and I am representing the PRO side of this debate. I welcome all challenges and arguments and will take them without any objections. Thank you! First off, I would like to say to some people that I am NOT a person who will spit at beggars who are in need for money. I am just merely saying that poor people are not just beneficial. Now for my argument. Poor people are taking up space in all the major cities in the U.S such as NYC, L.A, Chicago, etc...... They set up "communities" or rather, ghettos to "support each other economically and socially." However, what they're doing is that they are trying to live from our taxes. Now I ask you, how would you feel when somebody is not working, but they're just using your money? Of course you would feel angry. You would want them to work, so that your tax would be put to use in some other purposes. Now I will emphasize this again; the poor people are robbing us from the money that we have worked hard to get. Now my second point The poor people not only rob our money, but they are causing numerous problems. Let me tell you an examples. NYC is now making Harlem a "better place to live" which will take an astronomical amount of our taxes to execute. What caused some part of the NYC to be the most "problem making" area of the U.S? Not only that, the ghettos that poor people make are the sources of crimes that are caused by the "bad guys" or gangs that rob, rape, and murder. So, the poor people are making our great nation in to a garbage can. Now for my last point. Now you might think that the rich people cause as much problems as the poor people of this country do. I don't think so. Let's see a majority of rich people that are living in this nation. Bill Gates - made billions and billions of dollars after making the popular OSs (Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7). Steve Jobs - made as much as money as Bill Gates, and made the popular IPOD series which made the U.S as the leading country of MP3 industries. As you can see(I'm sure you know other examples, but I'll leave them to you), the MAJORITY of rich people are extremely beneficial to this nation. p.s: I'm sorry for such a short argument, but I have to do my homework.
Poor people are not beneficial to this country

Thank you for responding Brock Meyer (and for your arguments) I will now "reinforce" the arguments that I made because my opponent currently does not have any. First off, you refuted my first argument by saying that poor people also pays taxes through numerous ways directly or indirectly. And you're right on that. However, I found some statistics that are very relevant to this debate. For your refutation of your argument, I found out that the top 1% "rich" people pay 95% of the U.S's taxes. That's 95% v.s 5%. Now I ask you, which side contributes more to our nation? Also, you claim that most people of the poor people work. However, this cannot be compared to the billions of dollars that rich people made for this country. Second, you said that the crimes that rich people cause are taking up much more money than the poor people do. Well, if you talk about in essence of money, of course they do. But, do rob, murder, and rape? That is far beyond the "line" that can be paid with money. Of course, some people may think that being murdered could be paid by money.
Abortion is immoral

My stance is babies are innocent human beings from the moment of conception, and they have a fundamental right to life, which must be protected. My syllogism. A. Every Human has a human right to life, which can not be taken away. B. A new distinct living human comes into existence at conception. C. Concluding, everyone has human rights, like the right to life, from the moment of conception. Defending Premise AThis is the point where me an my opponent disagree, who has rights? According to the United Nations human rights are "rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status" [1]. Also, in the Universal Declaration of Human rights under Article 3 includes right to life [2]. Not to mention murder is illegal where ever on earth you go. However, my opponent claims this isn't true because it includes those humans who supposedly don't have desires. Therefore, my opponent doesn't believe in human rights unless they claim the unborn are not human. Defending Premise BMy opponent has actually already agreed with me on this premise. My opponent gave the definition of abortion of "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus". Something can not die unless it was once alive. My opponent even says "A human fetus". This shows they are human, and this is because its parents are human and they can't have any being that isn't human. Concluding, the unborn are living, and they are human. Attacking Premise 1There was really no defense here, all that was stated was it is true because of the interest principle. However, no defense of the interest principle was offered. No one would charge anyone for killing cells because cells don't have "cell rights". Even if the interest principle was true then there would certianly be desire for living which is that main point of premise 2. Attacking Premise 2Every living thing has desire to keep living. If you injure any living thing they will try to repair the damage because of the desire to live. This is because all living things respond to stimuli [3]. Attacking the Violinist argumentParents have a special responsibility to their offspring we don't have to strangers. So, the violinist is a stranger they are not one of your dependents. Someone in your city could be starving, and if you don't feed them you will not be charged with negelct. However, if your offspring in your home is starving you will be charged with negelct. Sources[1] . http://www.ohchr.org...[2] . http://www1.umn.edu...[3] . http://www.biology-online.org...
Abortion is immoral

Second round is for opening statements by Pro and Con (no rebuttals). Third round for first rebuttals. Fourth round for second rebuttals and concluding remarks. This debate will be centered on the moral issue concerning abortion, so do not bring Roe v. Wade or the law into this discussion. It's about the moral issue only. Pro and Con will also not be allowed to argue whether morality is objective or subjective. Because it's not relevant to the topic at hand. Pro will support the affirmative that abortion is immoral. Definition of abortion: "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus. " 72 Hours to Post Argument. 10,000 Characters Max. 1 week voting period. Select winner voting system. Good luck! (:
Assessment of Parental Ability Should Be Compulsive For All Expectant Parents

Firstly, I would like to assert that I am not against different parenting styles, and people will find that different things work for different people, depending on the dynamics within their family. Parenting style is not what I believe needs to be dealt with at all. For example, I don't agree with physical punishment, but I have known people in the past who have used this form of punishment effectively - the "one, two three" method, whereby they child gets this count to decide to stop the improper behaviour before receiving a smack - and the result was there was very rarely any punishment, the children learnt pretty quickly! So different strokes for different folks in that respect. So of course I agree that one can be an effective parent, using different techniques from other parents, as long as no damage is done to the child(ren). What I would like to see being dealt with are the underlying psychological issues which pre-determine a human beings potential to be an ABUSIVE parent. Psychological testing would identify these traits, and allow for treatment, and for education. Someone who is sociopathic, for example, does not experience normal human emotion. This person does not experience empathy, sympathy, compassion, even happiness. They see other human beings as objects which can be used to achieve whatever effect they desire. These people go undetected for years, as in the recent case of Josef Fritzl, in Austria, who fathered 7 children by his daughter, while she was imprisoned in a cellar by him for 24 years. This man simply saw his daughter as his possession, and the baby who died during that time as an inconvenient "thing" that he needed to get rid of. These people don't function in a way which makes them suitable carers for any vulnerable person, and to use one of my opponents own points, any child which is brought up by a parent with such traits, is at risk of developing these same traits and behaviours, so continuing the cycle of abuse. I, too, believe that any parenting difficulties that new parents experience can be overcome through experience, including that of older family members, and in no way would I ever say that this is the "wrong" way to do things. New parents need to be nurtured, in the same way that a new baby does. I do still believe that there are certain people in our society who should never be allowed the opportunity to be left alone for even the shortest time with any vulnerable person, let alone have full responsibility and freedom to abuse at will. And psychometric and psychological testing seems to me to be the only way to counter this.
Assessment of Parental Ability Should Be Compulsive For All Expectant Parents

The fundamental problem with opponents proposition is with such a system we would be creating another vicious circle that is built to keep people from ever getting the ability to become a qualified parent to start with. Like how to get a Job you need Job experience, to get that experience you need to have had some time in a job. No one is qualified to be a parent when they have there first child. Arguable there second as well for that brings new parenting problems they still have yet faced like how to deal with 'will you stop touching me' and figuring out witch child to punish for breaking the lamp. Second off it should remain no ones right to say at all what good parenting is. For every individual case for what being a good parent comes off as different, and the appropriate methods of parenting usually reflect the personality of the parent. This is because part of the great benefit of having a child is in some way you live on after you have died, because your kid grew up to reflect at least half of your traits in him/herself, you did raise him/her after all. In know way should we encourage the delusion among the expectant parents that there is a right way they can look up how to be a parent when there child comes, a book they can study that will somehow make taking the test easy or predictable experience. predictable in the sense that any challenge it will present is one they could have known to prepare for. Another thing my opponent forgets is that it is not unheard of for the coming of a baby that makes people grow up, and act more responsible. In fact its even common to be heard of. People who would not pass your assessment as capable of being a good parent before there baby comes end up being great parents, cause when push came to shove they surprised even themselves! The best sword has to be forged under fire. And the best parent wasn't qualified to be one when it came.
Assessment of Parental Ability Should Be Compulsive For All Expectant Parents

Surely all decent, caring human beings are rightly horrified upon hearing news stories of unimaginable cruelty against children, sustained over a long period of time, by their parents. Yet it is still the case that, although in some parts of the world, you require a license to own an animal, but anyone can have a child. I don't believe that having children is a right - it is a priviledge. As such, it should be earned. Those prospective parents who genuinely wanted to provide their children with nurture, care, and input required to deliver them safely into adulthood would have nothing to fear from psychological testing, and in fact should welcome it, as it would ensure that other children would be somewhat protected against parents who have serious personality disorders which could be harmful to the children in their care. I believe that upon any alarming or potentially harmful traits or attributes being identified, the prospective parents should be referred for therapy, parenting classes, and should also be monitored carefully, along with their children. I am not advocating the removal of children immediately from parents exhibiting problems, they should receive assistance initially. But a nationwide assessment scheme would ensure that these problems would be raised before the child was even born, hopefully dealing with potential cases of abuse before they became a reality.
BLACK PRESIDENT

I'm not sure what your issue is entirely, but I will give it a shot. It seems to me that you are saying a "black man won't be President" because you believe that white people would hold it back from happening. To counter that with facts, the latest poll today showed Barack Obama in the lead in Iowa, surely Iowa isn't all blacks and winning the Caucass would elevate him to a position where he could become the Democratic Nominee. The problem with Obama is his youth and blatant lack of experience in Governmental affairs. There are many things about him that the public doesn't really know and we aren't going to vote for a candidate whose positions aren't entirely clear. Most educated people vote for the person who they believe is the better fit for the Office in question. Voting for someone just because they are black of just because they are white is ignorant. My beliefs lean towards the Republican Spectrum, but that doesn't mean that automatically cancels Obama out. Infact, I can't stand the likes of Rudi Guilliani and John McCain. Also, I raise the question of any facts you have to prove your theory with Alan Keyes previously being a Republican Contendor and Barack Obama being a Democrat in this election. I also want to ask you why Obama is so popular if he stands no chance of being President? Keep in mind that there are many white supporters as well as black supporters for Obama.
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

Resolution: It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rules: - First round acceptance - No new arguments in the last round - 8000 characters & 48hrs to argue. Better: of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc. ; preferable. [1] Example of a Dog: . http://7-themes.com...Example of a Cat: . http://i.kinja-img.com...[1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Dan Brown's portrayal of Christian history in "The Da Vinci Code" is inaccurate.

My argument is that the various historical claims that Dan Brown makes in his fictional novel, "The Da Vinci Code," are inaccurate. The claims include: "Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and they had children." "The Vatican suppressed science and truth in order to gain power." "Da Vinci was a closet atheist and intentionally tried to undermine the Church." ...and other such claims. In the first round, my opponent should choose one or two claims above or another claim that he or she wishes to defend. My opponent may choose to make a few introductory defenses of the claim, but they are not required to in the first round. The second round will include an initial debunking of the claim, and other arguments.
Should guns be banned? (think Las Vegas Massacre)

Of course guns should be banned. My opponent is correct in the fact that they will still, despite the ban, be sold, but, no guns = no gun licenses = anyone seen with a gun is breaking the law, and probably could lead the government to that part of the black-market. Most people are against being Bluetree653 said, "What about cigarettes? We don't ban them because people need them and also we have the second amendment for guns." First off, cigarettes addict people, guns however, don't, so that argument is invalid. Second off, technically, a gun is not a common weapon, and there would be less of a need of an armed militia if no guns are around. No guns = less criminals = less need for guns. Guns are not the right thing to need. Please, enjoy.
Should guns be banned? (think Las Vegas Massacre)

Just because guns can be harmful doesn't mean that they should be taken away or that their usage should be reduced. If laws were created to ban guns, people would still find ways to maintain weapons, just like the black market does for drugs. Additionally, in 1918 a law passed that banned alcohol, but it didn't work. If you think that guns should be banned, what about cigarettes? We don't ban them because people need them and also we have the second amendment for guns. The shooter of the LA massacre would've found weapons either way even if gun laws were stricter.
Negotiations for the TPP agreement should be abandoned

Welcome one and all to the grand finals of the second ELO tournament. Special thanks to Noumena for setting things up, Raisor for suggesting an interesting subject as well as agreeing to the final motion and everybody else who competed for making things fun. Extra-special thanks to anybody that votes. Just try to remember to be fair and constructive if you can. The TPP agreement is a little acronym for the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic "Partnership", which is basically a free trade deal. A mini-version of this deal, called the P4 agreement (of which my country is a signatory, along with Chile, Singapore and Brunei) has existed since 2005, but since then loads of other countries (including the USA and most recently Japan) have tried to negotiate their way into the deal. In this debate, I will argue that this is a dumb idea. In fact, I reckon all of these agreements have been a waste of time.
Where Was God During The Holocaust

As my opponent has not presented which God, I will use the christian god Yahweh for my stance. By reading my opponents.... argument, to say the most. I have concluded that he believes the Holocaust was an act of evil. Now if we agree that there is evil, then we also agree that there must be something that is good. When we have good and evil in this world, we reach the conclusion that there is a moral law that seperates the two. Once there is a moral law, there is a moral law giver that instilled the moral law. The moral law giver must be God, who is unchanging, infinite, and consistent. In the case that the moral law giver is society, or an individual, the moral law becomes relative or something that evolves and changes. It becomes inconsistent and the moral law becomes impossible. And hence if there is no god, there is no moral law, which ultimately means there is no good or evil. So where was god during the holocaust? That is a question that I do not know the answer for, since I am not god. But my infinitely limited and imperfect answer is that God (Yahweh), was a god that gave his only son so that humanity may be forgiven for all its transgression, including the holocaust. We imperfect beings with our infinitely limited wisdom cannot question god, who is perfect. How could we imperfect beings claim what PERFECTION should be? No matter what the reason was that god allows any evil in this world to happen, do you think you know better than god? Of course, my answers and questions are based sorely on my faith in the bible, but when the question is regarding GOD, I believe that my faith becomes a valid asset to my arguement. Conclusion: Now I realized I haven't tackled the main question stated, but I assumed that my opponent was labeling Holocaust as evil while trying to descredit god as nonexistant or false through the event. On a philosophical note, good and evil cannot exist without god. If morality was something relative differing from individuals then the holocaust can be both good or evil, it is up to the individual to decide. If god did not exist the holocaust becomes neutral, neither good nor bad, but because god exists we can ponder why this evil happened, along with every other suffering and pain that is prominent all over the world. So where was god? Who knows, but he must have surely been somewhere.