BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The discussion of politics belongs in the bar

Growing up in the United States there were two maxims that were constantly presented to me by parents and elders, that it's impolite to discuss politics and religion. So much to the point that people honestly think that their politics is no one else's business. We live in a nation where popular vote decides a lot of things, yet many people still feel it is impolite to discuss politics, and some still feel that they shouldn't, and that they won't discuss their political views, such as who they are voting for. The anonymity of casting one's ballot was meant to protect a person from the fear of being punished for how they voted, and was first used by the Athenians during their court cases. It was not intended to expand onto all political views. In a nation where so much is decided by the popular masses, we need to be open to the discussion of politics and policy with each other. After years of drinking in college, I now also own a bar. One of the frequent things that I hear from people who often cannot justify their political views is that "poltics doesn't belong in the bar!" I have come to the opinion that a man who will not discuss their politics with you is out to do you harm, and should not be trusted. I can think of no better place to discuss political views because if you cannot explain your views to another person while inebriated, or cannot get an inebriated person to accept or understand your political views, you should probably change them when you're sober. After all, politics in the United States were born in the bar when people got together to read and discuss the newest letters and pamphlets. Sam Adams, after all, was just a drunk in the bar expressing his unpopular views for twenty years until the rest of his peers realized he was just the man they needed, so John Hancock bought him a new suit, and took him to the Constitutional Congress.
Once Upon A Time is better that Adventure Time

Hi there, I would like to say that your reason as to why OUAT is better than Adventure Time is seriously flawed. First, you say that OUAT is 500 times better than Adventure time, but you have no proof whatsoever that it's better. I believe that Adventure Time should win this debate because it is an animated show. The time that it takes to get voice actors, and edit almost every single scene is critical to this show. In OUAT, the actors act themselves, so there is minimal need to edit the scenes. Another reason why Adventure Time should win is because unlike OUAT, Adventure Time has a humorous part to it. You can tell that the carefully crafted TV show has lots of funny scenes. Adventure Time is always fresh, while OUAT is bland. That is why Adventure Time should win.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

This debate follows National Forensics League LD format. If you are not familiar with it, do not accept this debate!Voting guideleines will be presented at the bottom. I will try to keep this under 2,000 characters so I can fit my speech in. Formatting will be similar to time, but 1 minute = 1,000 characters. Debaters will be expected to copy+paste speeches into MS Word and provide a word count at the bottom of the speech in order to verify to the judges that the speeches are legal.Character Limits by Speech:R1: Terms of debate AcceptanceR2: AC (aff. constructive) NC/NR (neg. constructive/neg. rebuttal)R3: 1AR (first aff rebuttal) 2NR (2 neg rebuttal)R4: 2AR (second aff rebuttal) Congratulations----------------------------------------------Voting Guidelines:Conduct will be tied unless there is a forfeit.Spelling and Grammar shall be neutral unless one competitor is guilty of breeching theory.Arguments shall be given to whichever side won the debate.Sources shall be given to whichever side presents better sources.----------------------------------------------This debate is currently not acceptable. Comment here or PM me in order to let me know you are serious about this. This is a series of debates that I am going to be starting in order to further my skills in this form of debate before competing next year. Thank you.
Violence is not an effective method to ensure peace.

Throughout history, people have relied on wars and violence in order to resolve issues, whether it be for profit or satisfaction in other ways. As of now, it is culturally acceptable, in certain circumstances to use violence in order to resolve issues for a supposed peaceful endpoint that "justifies the means". My argument is that violence only perpetuates more violence, and in order to mitigate it, we must create new alternatives and change our ideology that has been ingrained through social conditioning.
teen curfew

Teens, as in teenagers, should have curfews. curfew: " an order or law that requires people to be indoors after a certain time at night"(1) Reason 1: safety "Although teens often bristle at the perceived unfairness and randomness of curfews, curfews can help keep teenagers safer, states Carl Pickhardt, Ph.D., a psychologist writing for Psychology Today. Risks can become greater as the hour gets later, with more people who are out being fatigued or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In addition, later hours may present more challenges to your teenager, as she may face exposure to more decisions about conduct."(2) Reason two: Teens need more sleep "A curfew can be an effective way to ensure that your teenager gets enough sleep, advises the Aspen Education Group. Teenagers need up to 9.5 hours of sleep each night, according to the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. Parents might set a school-night curfew at a time that enables the teenager to get the required number of hours of sleep to get up for school the next morning."(2) While I did not articulate these arguments myself, they reflect my view. A curfew for teens does protect teens, and teens, according to science, need more sleep. I would also add that Teens already have a tougher time rationally thinking and reasoning due to there under developed prefrontal cortex in their brains. (3) Anyone who has ever been tired can attest to the obvious fact that the more exhausted you are the worse you ability to reason and critically think. Conclusion: Due to teens lack of ability to critically think, their need for extra sleep, as well as the benefit of added safety, teens should have a curfew. (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)http://everydaylife.globalpost.com... (3)http://hrweb.mit.edu...
Utilitarianism functions as a paradigm

In utilitarianism, the agent or actor, must weigh the consequences of the possible action as an independent objectivist. Meaning, that he/she/it must evaluate the circumstance as if they had an equal stake in each persons situation. The objective nature of the decision making process would ensure that these "natural human rights" are not violated unless the advantages of violating them are TRULY worth it. The fact that utilitarianism makes some endure pain, while others get pleasure is merely a reflection of reality. There exists no action or philosophy which can produce absolute positive effects. The goal then, is to determine which positive effects outweigh which negatives and vice versa. The objective nature of the actor allows this to happen, despite the subjective nature of pleasure. A couple of issues arise here. First, if pleasure is subjective then it follows that the 'just' action is contingent on the definition of good. As this definition is never universal, we can assume that the subjective nature of good or pleasure and the objective nature of the actor can ensure that the action is the MOST JUST, not necessarily perfect. In other words, since we can't realistically define good, the best we can hope to do is make sure that the agent has taken all parties equally into account (as a utilitarian objective actor would). Regardless of what the actor values as good, utilitariansim requires him to regard each consequence as if he had equal stake in it, therefore the decision would not be skewed, making these people suffer. Also, this notion of "natural human rights" seems presumptious. I know its something that we talk about a lot. I just don't see the justification behind thinking that we are all born with these undeniable qualities. Its kind of engrained into us, rather than proven. Thats probably a topic for another time, but intriguing nonetheless.
Utilitarianism functions as a paradigm

The problem with utilitarianism is that "pleasure" is subjective. Maximizing societal pleasure requires an objective measure of what is "good" or "pleasurable," and thus, in political action, utilitarianism empowers an elite to determine the values of its "inferiors." Since the "pain" of some can be weighed against the "pleasure" of others; and since utilitarianism makes no moral argument against forcing some to endure "pain" in order that others can experience "pleasure," this philosophy justifies violation of natural human rights. A preferable political philosophy is one in which the natural rights of all human beings are respected, and that no man or woman's natural rights may be violated in the pursuit of "pleasure" for others.
current economics

I quite respect CON's humility and patience! ~ being a humble trooper is the best way. I apologize for forfeiting the previous round. .. It seems Uni - finals were a little more stressful than intended. .. anyways. I'm not sure what exactly is meant (that is, in relation to the whole argument) by the first bit of argumentation. Many countries create new capital (a perhaps slightly better term than 'money') in many different ways. But what you seem to be suggesting is that because few countries base their capital on the gold-standard that it somehow lacks value - and that this lack of value is then somehow transferred upon the goods of that same nation. I do not know what brings you to this claim, or quite how it plays a part in your greater argument. You are right that capital is no longer based on traditional schemes of 'value' (gold or silver standards), but this does NOT mean that capital is valueless. Capital is a social institution, it is through our recognition, acceptance, and usage of capital that society confers value unto it. Furthermore the idea that contemporary system of capital is directly responsible for increases in deficit is quite the leap. deficits are brought about through a wide variety of possible reasons, for example: America's War in Iraq is the cause of a huge sum of debt - It has nothing to do with the way money is created, and everything to do with military expenditures. I would also like to point out the danger of uttering the following: "yes I believe the global economy all works the same way" It is undeniably true that we live in a time of global communication, movement, trade, and general interdependence, the term is, after all: 'Globalization'. However although there is a 'global economy' there is NOT a 'global economic-system'. The global economy is a vast and dynamic entity, composed of widely varying schemes, methods, beliefs, goals, and resources; to say that the global economy all works the same way is to claim that what is economically viable in America is also economically viable in China. alas, the difficulties of the existential quantifier "ALL". .. but I digress. .. In addition, although I would have loved to have heard CON's suggestion for a new economic model (it is verum-factum that some new economic scheme is desperately needed! ), CON did not provide us with even a smidgen of such a schema to work with. Thus, all in all it seems that CON has failed to provide adequate backing or defense against the points I raised for either of the claims [(1) that the global economic system is a total failure, and (2), that CON has a better idea]. This should logically and sensibly bring us to the conclusion that CON's position is a failure.
current economics

its when they decided to make money before a product or a new material or resource is found, and every new product or a new material or resource found after that has no value there has been no new money brought from it except for a new debt. if this isn't true why does the defecate get higher each year? and yes I believe the global economy all works the same way. (made up) and horribly wrong 2) cons way: my way isn't finished yet I have thought about it over and over but its still not finished but here's what I have so far instead of everything working backwards every thing that comes into trade has to be given a set value from the basic (material) to the labor it takes to make the object. Then New debt free money would have to be made for that object to symbolizes its trade value. not backwards like we do it. Then I get confused on how it be held because if the object wasn't traded you wouldn't want the money in circulation, it be a debt. so from there you would need a way to know if an object (trade value) was traded or not to put the money in circulation. then the only way there is to go is up not down, up, down if my opponent wishes for me to try and enplane better ask me please System that has to fail every once in a while isn't a good system and a system that leaves people poor and dieing from lack of food should be banished from are lives I ask my opponent why he/she thanks are current economic ways are right when it can fail and I say sorry this is my first debate I'm learning as I go also I have a full time job so I can only be on at late night. Hopefully I can fulfill my end of the debate to you.
current economics

Thanking for initiating this debate CON! It has much potential. For CON to succeed in this debate he needs to provide argumentation for the following two premises: (1) that the current Global economic climate is indeed completely and utterly doomed to fail, due primarily to the sub-premise: 'not being kept up to date'. (2) CON's "new system of how economics work" given by CON himself must be properly formulated and stated. CON has given himself quite the task. ------------------------------------------------------------ Firstly, on Premise (1) - the current Global climate is far to diverse for the claim that "it isn't up to date" to possibly succeed. The world isn't just one way. It is obviously true that due to globalization our world is economically linked and integrated - but this still does not even slightly suggest that what is economically true in India will also be true in Brazil, China, or America. I certainly concede the point that American economic downturn is probably due in part to overly-conservative economic models ('out of date' models) - but economics itself is far more diverse to say that it was the ONLY factor, or even a MAJOR factor. In truth some of the largest factors are probably the failure of the education system of America and also America's growing deficit, need I continue? Furthermore - if viewed on a larger scale, the recession faced by parts of the Globe is simply part of the economic cycle itself. The ups and downs are necessary for economic growth. Old and dead capital needs to be cleansed from the system through economic-downturn as to make room for the introduction of fresh new capital to grow on. Premise (2), which to some degree relies upon the acceptance of premise (1), was not even given (just mentioned as being a premise of this argument) so not only do I not feel I need to refute it, but it is impossible to even discuss something that as-of-yet does not exist! Anyways - I look forward to CON's response! This could, if taken properly, turn into a great argument.
Alchohol and Smoking are More Dangerous than Marijuana

Well, the debate has begun!"No, these 2 things in moderation are better than smoking marijuana which makes you lazy and changes your personality."And smoking and alcohol doesn't? Alcohol gives you a drunken demeanor; which is much worse than simply being lazy. And drinking beer and smoking makes you lazy, as smoking can destroy the lungs, thus making you lazy and unable to move very effectively. Alcohol can destroy the way the brain works, thus damaging your personality, wisdom, and ability to do normal things, such as play sports or solve a math problem. I just uprooted your first argument in a few sentences. Lets take a look at the definition of "Dangerous":Dangerous: Able or likely to cause harm or injury [1].So right now, we are debating which one is more likely to cause harm and injury. Marijuana, I will start out by saying there have been 26 unconfirmed deaths between 1999 and 2007 with marijuana as the supposedly underlying cause [2]. With smoking alone causes 443,000 deaths per year [3]. Also, there have been literally no confirmed deaths ever with marijuana as the undisputed cause. Alcohol causes abut 75,000 deaths in the U.S per year [4]. Marijuana? As I said, about zero. This counts as harm. As for injury? The numbers for alcohol are baffling. 1/3 of all traffic incidents are caused by drunk driving. It has caused 10,000 deaths and many more injuries [5]. While alcohol can cause a baffling number of external injuries, smoking can cause an even greater- and more dangerous- internal injuries. Studies have shown that smoking increases the chances of getting cancer by almost 900%, and 90% of people with lung cancer are smokers [6]. On average, smokers die about 13.5 years [6 younger than non-smokers. And at least 8 million people in the world have one serious disease caused by smoking. Marijuana? A ton less.In conclusion, how does being lazy and changing your personality compare to killing people, yourself, and your life? That's right. It doesn't. Marijuana doesn't even come remotely close to the dangers of smoking and alcohol.[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://wiki.answers.com...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...[4] http://www.nbcnews.com...[5] http://www.cdc.gov...[6] http://www.lung.org...
Best blonde jokes ever!!

A blonde, a brunette, and a redhead are running from the cops. They all hide in a barn. The brunet hides with the pigs, the red head hides with the horses and the blonde hides behind a sack of potatoes. The cops enter the barn and shine a flash light on the pigs, the brunette says "oink oink" and the cops move on. The cops shine their flash lights on the horses, the red head goes "neigh neigh". Finally the cops shine a light on the sacks of potatoes and the blond says " potato potato". Try to guess who got aressted
Best blonde jokes ever!!

two blonde guys are working on a roof. one guy is working really good. the other guy is taking out nails one by one. he takes one out and throws it away. takes another and nails it in. and another and nails it in. and another and throws it back. the other blonde looks at him and asks what he is doing. he says well if i pull out a nail and its pointing to me then its defective. but if its pointed away from me then it works. the other blonde says you idiot those are for the other side of the roof.
Inter-racial Marriage is Detrimental to Society

I prefer the Resolution you have selected. I am NOT arguing to criminalize inter-racial marriage. I am NOT arguing the morality of it. What this debate shall be about is whether or not the mixture of the races is harmful to society. I will be operating under the belief that to violate the purity of something (I.E. violate the purity of the different races when they inter-breed) is harmful. My Opponent must, in his next round, provide reasoning for this being un-true. Looking forwardto a great debate!
Inter-racial Marriage is Detrimental to Society

Resolved: Inter-racial Marriage is Detrimental to SocietyMy opponent, Virgil.Cain has stated the resolution in another debate. I want to thank him for accepting this debate. His acceptance will place him in the Pro position and will place on him the burden of proof. Although I will be Instigator of the debate, I will refute the resolution, and thus be Con in the debate. If the reader finds this proposition unclear, let me clarify: My opponent will argue that interracial marriage is detrimental to society; I will argue that it is not. If my opponent so chooses, he may use the Bible as an authoritative source for this debate, and I will accept it as a viable source. If my opponent prefers a secular debate, I will also debate any historic and/or scientific arguments. If he chooses a combination of secular and sacred sources, I will gladly engage him on both levels. Being that I have given my opponent options concerning authoritative sources in this debate, if he wishes to propose a modification of the resolution of the debate to fit the evidence he uses, he may do so (as long as the resolution is still about interracial marriage, of course!) Ex: Resolved: Interracial Marriage Violates Christian Teaching (religious debate) or Resolved: Interracial Marriage Would Destroy The Genetic Superiority of Certain Races (scientific debate) As it stands, the current resolution would be political debate which woul require historical evidence.Since My opponent is Pro in the debate, the second half of the first round will be acceptance/Opening Argument; and the debate will be structured as follows:Round 1b/2a: Opening ArgumentsRound 2b/3a: RebuttalsRound 3b/4a: Responses to Rebuttals/Con's ConclusionRound 4b: Pro's ConclusionPro may define the terms of the resolution in the first round, and I will have the option to accept his terms. I wish my opponent luck. Let the debate begin:
Inter-racial Marriage is Detrimental to Society

Obviously, this debate has taken a turn that neither the reader nor I expected. I still would like to give the reader my rebuttal to my opponent's position that interracial marriage dilutes racial purity. 1. Bi-racial children will not be entered into a dog show, so it will never be important for them to be purely bred. 2. Europe has pure bred Englishmen, Irishmen, Germans, Italians and Frenchmen, et. al. The United States rarely has purely bred European ethnicities, that is why they are given the catch-all "White" label. Therefore, an argument for racial purity from an American is rather hypocritical. 3. Mixed blood has not stopped many from being successful. Some names that come to mind are: a. President Barak Obama b. Actress Halle Berry c. American Idol Winner Jordin Sparks These are three off the top of my head, and there are many more; but, I'm sure the reader will get the point. 4. My opponent has not offered any evidence to show that racial impurity is detrimental to society. Thank you for reading!
Inter-racial Marriage is Detrimental to Society

Opening Argument for ConResolved: Interracial Marriage is Detrimental to SocietyIs interracial marriage detrimental to society? My opponent has accepted the task of attempting to prove beyond reasonable doubt that interracial marriage is somehow harmful to society. (As per our agreement concerning the organization of this debate in Round 1, I will not rebuttal his Opening Argument about "purity," until Round 3.) My opponent has a twofold challenge ahead of himself because he will need to first of all show the detriment and secondly, he will need to prove that the detrimental effects he presents were caused exclusively by interracial marriage and not by other factors. This is a task that I believe my opponent will not be able to accomplish. I personally see nothing but good coming from interracial marriage (or abbreviated thus: "IR marriage"); however, it is not my debate to prove the good effects of IR marriage. I challenge my opponent to list:Detrimental Effects1.2.3.and then to tell :How these effects are caused exclusively by IR marriage1.2.3.If my opponent has nothing in either heading, or he has items under the "Detrimental Effects" heading but he cannot show how they are caused exclusively by IR marriage; then logically, my opponent shall have lost the debate.