BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama's idea for "Universal Health Care" will only tear down America.

I affirm "Resolved: If this plan of the President's is put into action, America will only fall into a deeper recession." 1.This government industry is destined to fail. Essentially, universal health care reflects such programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but on a far larger scale. As we all know, Social Security, and the like, are experiencing bureaucratic complications, a steady decrease in funding, and an increase in demand. Within 20 years, these programs will likely be nonexistent. It may be assumed that universal health care, being a similar program, will be subject to the same pressures, and eventually, cease to exist. This will have profound negative repercussions. The system's inevitable collapse with lead to a universal lack of health insurance, eliminating preventative care, and placing the burden of all emergency care on an insufficient general government fund. The link to recession is clear. 2.The government would experience a vast decrease in funds. Malpractice lawsuits are at unprecedented levels. If the government were to adopt this program, said suits would apply to the United States government, and therefore taxpayers. The detriment of this is undisputable. Also, the government, with its bureaucratic clutter, is more likely to commit malpractice. Not only will these lawsuits take money from taxpayers; they will increase due to government inefficiency. 3.This will result in the destruction of the health insurance industry. This industry is one of America's fastest growing, and provides 14 million jobs, or 5 percent of the American workforce. This industry's destruction would lead to mass layoffs, and drive our nation far further into a recession. 4.My opponents arguments support the Proposition. Therefore, "Obama's idea for universal health care will not help America. It will hurt the economy, the middle class, and anyone who pays taxes. Rich people know this. They make lots of money and don't want to loose another penny to another one of Obma's idiotic plans, such as heavily taxing anyone who makes over $150,000 a year (that number has been lowered three times since August)." Must also be successfully defended by my opponent. 5.Thanks for reposting. I look forward to your arguments.
Obama's idea for "Universal Health Care" will only tear down America.

Obama's idea for universal health care will not help America. It will hurt the economy, the middle class, and anyone who pays taxes. Rich people know this. They make lots of money and don't want to loose another penny to another one of Obma's idiotic plans, such as heavily taxing anyone who makes over $150,000 a year (that number has been lowered three times since August). Resolution: If this plan of the President's is put into action, America will only fall into a deeper recession.
Donald Trump is a good president.

It may be true that it makes people richer but you ignore the debt. It doesn't need to be stronger. North Korea has a worse military, has less spending, and far less nukes. They're like crying children. The wall won't work. Most go over via planes. We can have pro life supreme justices but again we need to repeal for v wade. Scandals do exist. He hasn't released his tax returns when he said he would, one of his cabinet members were impeached and he has conflicts on interest. The US, to fight North Korea like you propose must be united. Furthermore being united is in our name and without being united we will fight eachother more than we already have. We may not need to be, but we should.
Donald Trump is a good president.

I don't see how lowering taxes, building up the military, building a wall (Mexico won't pay for it.) The Tax Foundation expects 2 to 3 trillion added to the debt. Some economists also put it up as high as 10 trillion, which is more than Obama had alone. Then for abortion we have the ruling of for v wade which, unless it is overturned, will make it impossible for him to ban abortion. Then we also have his scandals and people getting impeached or resigning. It could end up as Watergate 2.0 if it get's bad enough. Furthermore, his presidency is riling up people and is splitting the nation into 2. We need a united US, and Trump won't help. Source: https://www.google.com...
Dubbed Anime vs. Subbed Anime

The subtitling of an anime is not done by the producers of the anime. It is usually done by fans who speak both Japanese and another language and where there is no available dub at the time. This is why the subbed anime is always about 20-40 episodes ahead of the dubbed one.Voice acting is far harder than transcribing as you need different actors per char and can't just be some fan on your computer editing away.The fact that you can watched subbed anime and get the gist of what's going on doesn't disprove that it's more difficult and less enjoyable for the viewer to have to force their brain to work harder to take it all in; most people watch anime to relax.
Dubbed Anime vs. Subbed Anime

"Dubbed anime allows the viewer to focus on the actual anime and artwork while listening to the speech rather than being distracted from the anime itself by having to read text the whole time." Subbed anime actually still has sound but it's just in Japanese. If you watch more and more subbed anime, you will be able to get the hang of it. Still, it shouldn't be too hard to just read and watch at the same time. "Dubbed takes far more effort and resources to produce than subbed because it is so much better and higher quality." The subbed anime actually was the one that got all the animation done. The dubbed only needs voice actors and that's it. The subbed anime takes much longer than the dubbed anime.
Doctor Who Tumblr Picture Post Debate

1. http://25.media.tumblr.com... (mymysterylamb.tumblr.com) 2. http://25.media.tumblr.com... (beyond-the-valley-of-the-dolls.tumblr.com) 3. http://24.media.tumblr.com... (xlock.tumblr.com) 4. http://25.media.tumblr.com... (stelarcat.tumblr.com) 5. http://25.media.tumblr.com... (deadspy.tumblr.com)
Doctor Who Tumblr Picture Post Debate

1. http://25.media.tumblr.com... (i-ncedendo.tumblr.com) 2. (these two are part of the same post) http://24.media.tumblr.com... and http://25.media.tumblr.com... (chonmcalister.tumblr.com) 3. http://25.media.tumblr.com... (youre-standing-on-my-scarf.tumblr.com) 4.http://static.tumblr.com... (youre-standing-on-my-scarf.tumblr.com) 5. http://25.media.tumblr.com... (suddenbluebell.tumblr.com) 6. http://25.media.tumblr.com... (keepcalmanddonotblink.tumblr.com) 7. http://24.media.tumblr.com... (suddenbluebell.tumblr.com) 8. http://24.media.tumblr.com... (trickster-penguin.tumblr.com)
Doctor Who Tumblr Picture Post Debate

1. http://24.media.tumblr.com... (smalltindog.tumblr.com) 2. http://24.media.tumblr.com... (legions-of-the-black-light.tumblr.com) 3. http://25.media.tumblr.com... (awaris.tumblr.com) 4. http://24.media.tumblr.com... (voicesfromthevortex.tumblr.com) 5. (these two are part of the same post) http://25.media.tumblr.com... and http://25.media.tumblr.com... (jenna-ln.tumblr.com) 6. (again part of the same post) http://24.media.tumblr.com... and http://25.media.tumblr.com... and http://25.media.tumblr.com... and http://24.media.tumblr.com... (youmakemyheartsinggg.tumblr.com) 7.http://25.media.tumblr.com... (anaspiringreceptionist.tumblr.com) 8. http://24.media.tumblr.com... (lifelessstar.tumblr.com) 9. http://25.media.tumblr.com... (sara-jane-stormageddon.tumblr.com) 10. http://media.tumblr.com... (dreonpendragon.tumblr.com) Good luck! I know my explanation was not the best, so I hope my example helps a bit if anyone was still confused.
Doctor Who Tumblr Picture Post Debate

This is just a random debate idea I came up with. Completely informal and just for fun. Rounds: Round 1: details/rules/questions. If you have a question, ask in this round or in the comments. I will answer in the comment section. Save the pictures for round two. Round 2: Debate actually starts. Find ten tumblr picture posts related to Doctor Who. Round 3: Same as round one, but this time find eight pictures. Round 4: 5 pictures Round 5: 3 pictures Rules: Each picture must be from tumblr (or gifs) Each picture must be relevant to Doctor Who Pictures can be funny, entertaining, sad, cool, or whatever you like Voters will decide who found the best pictures Be sure to list where all pictures come from with a username or url. Oh, and to post the tumblr pictures, copy and paste the image url onto the debate page, because pictures won't appear directly on the site. Like so: http://3.bp.blogspot.com... I think that's it. Allons-y!
Pre-emption vs. Deterrence (Modern Warfare)

My opponent didn't address any of my arguments. My opponent didn't follow his own format. The last round he was supposed to respond to my arguments. But I plan to address all of his arguments. I guess he threw the rule book out the window, it would seem. "Present Day Security Challenges cannot be deterred. ""Info Age Threats Demand Immediate Action. ""Seizing of security initiatives""Effective Arms Control"I agree with my opponent when he says cyber attacks and counterintelligence can't be deterred. These are non state actors who are difficult to find. This also makes it difficult to have a preemptive attack as well. How can you attack those who you don't know. Many people engaging in cyber attacks are non state actors and can not be acted against. I however disagree with my opponent's other claims. Weapons of Mass Destruction can be deterred. I have already refuted my opponent's claim in #1B. Terrorism can also be deterred by using soft power which is a form of deterrence. America should use foreign aid to help build schools in foreign countries. To act against terrorists preemptively will result in more resentment from locals. The United States should work to neutralize their opponents not irritate them more. Acting preemptively can aggravate our enemies more into fanatical moods. Essentially, we are breeding more terrorists. Sort of like how the United States helped to create ISIL indirectly when we destabilized Iraq. "The Best Defense is a Good Offense. ""Premptive Policy Adds to Deterrence"This is simply rhetoric in both of the quotes offered by Pro above. Deterrence is a defense. To preemptively attack someone is offensive in nature. War itself destabilizes regions. By destability, I am talking about the decline in leadership and the decline in institutions. Sort of like how removing Saddam Hussein actually helped create a full blown civil war in Iraq. Now, dissident Sunnis are battling what they see as the Shia government in Iraq. The region is unstable because of preemptive policies. Who would deny it? My opponent purposely ignored the results of preemptive policies in the countries where violence is initiated. Deterrence needs to be considered first and foremost in order to protect the United States interests as well as the countries where threats exist. Note: My opponent made a false claim about proliferation in Iraq. The only WMD found in Iraq was a nuclear centrifuge.
Pre-emption vs. Deterrence (Modern Warfare)

Military debate. I argue to my opponent that as a general rule for diplomacy, foreign relations, and national security policies that the use of Force should NOT be used only as a last resort. I argue exclusively that a doctrine of Pre-emption (including preemptive and preventative war) is far more effective at dismantling information age threats and safeguarding the interests of a nation as a whole than a policy of deterrence. CON must prove that deterrence theory is still a viable defense option and that deterrence strategies overall are better at meeting modern day security challenges than doctrines of preemption. Definitions: Deterrence - military strategy under which one power uses the threat of reprisal effectively to dissuade an adversary from taking a course of action not yet started. Preemption - preventative war launched in an attempted to destroy the perceived or potential threat of an adversary. Rounds: 1. acceptance/definitions 2. arguments 3. counter arguments 4. conclusions
Christianity

let me say this first i this debate is not here to talk about evolution vs. Christianity it is here to debate christianity. Not the church and its actions. this is for the relgious piece only refering to the bible and JESUS. My view on christianity is that though it is an exclusive relgion in the fact that it asks you to dedicate your life to god. I believe christianity to be a great pro every lesson JESUS taught was positive and always had a good meaning. if everyone were to live by the ten commadments life would be a lot easier. Though some of the things when seperated out they may have negative effects but when used together the laws of the lord would be positive.
Christianity

ok sorry agian to reply to the first part about the whip well one those people in the temple were commiting a sin in defiling the house of god and since they were invaders in his house he kid there sorry butts out of there. ok to respond to your moses thing i have to say think whatever you want i think of the bible as pretty darn acurate so thats your choice well im closing my accont now this whole thing is a bad addiction for me so got to go
Christianity

sorry this is short but i have a question for you in your first round you stated **There's also random stuff like attacking the money changers with a scourge (that he made himself). People are doing their job, he goes home, makes a whip with shards of metal and glass and attacks them with it, he doesn't wow them with wisdom or use some Godly power... he attacks them like a crazy person.** could you please expound upon were you found this. This is really troubling me if this did happen please tell me were you found this. sorry got nothing else.
Consequentialism is superior to deontological ethics in determining morality.

Okay, we can look to definitions in this debate as well as what actually come of it. For that reason, here are my official definitions: Deontological ethics: In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good or bad. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare. (Britannica) The most important part of this definition is that deontologically, something is mandatory based on the goodness of the action. For example you must not lie because lying is immoral. Consequentialism: Consequentialism, In ethics, the doctrine that actions should be judged right or wrong on the basis of their consequences. (Britannica) Consequentialism is superior to deontological ethics for 3 reasons. Consequentialism offers the correct moral decisions more often, consequentialism actually does encumber deontological ideas, and an action has no worth without an actual consequence. Consequentialism is more moral. Consequentialism looks to a desired outcome to judge what is moral. Consequentialism allows for the correct action because when there is a moral outcome anything can be done to reach it. This is true because if the outcome is moral than you aren't really harming anyone. Here's an example. ~ Suppose there is a killer at your door who asks you where you children are so that he can kill them. In this case consequentially the moral option is to lie so they aren't harmed. However when looking to deontology you would be unable to lie because the lying in and of itself is immoral which blocks you from the moral end. On top of that, Consequentialism just goes beyond deontology, but doesn't disregard it all the time. Usually there will be bad consequences for "Immoral actions" such as lying. However, consequentialism just allows us as people to adjust moral laws to certain circumstances when necessary. For example, looking to the consequences will always be moral where abiding by preset moral laws could lead to death such as the above example. Finally, the only reason we have the concept of morality is because of consequences. The only reason that one would say killing is immoral is because ON BALANCE it has harmful affects. This is because we have experienced the consequences. Because of this it only make sense to look toward consequentialism. If killing had no consequence we would't care if its moral or not so its really the consequences that justify something or not. For these reasons, consequentialism is actually superior and not equal to deontology when trying to make a moral decision.
Consequentialism is superior to deontological ethics in determining morality.

Before I go through each of my opponents attacks I would like to point out that they have no points of their own as to why deontological ethics is better or even equal to Consequentialism. All of the points are just attacks so I don't really have much to attack. My opponent will have to clearly give points as to why they are equal. If my opponent believes they only must attack my points than that doesn't really give equal ground because they have nothing to defend. Anyway, enough of all that. Lets jump into my opponents 1st attack. I think this was misunderstood as they asked for clarification on correct and more often. 1st of all, correct could mean what was good in retrospect or for more even ground, what's good for society.. The contention is saying that consequentialism will always be moral because it is always looking towards a moral end and that moral ends never really harm anyone. If we look to means like in deontology than we may be moral in not lying but end up giving a villain access to murdering everyone in the world. If we look to a desired end such as keeping people in the world alive than that lying is justified and this is the correct answer. Also, my opponent seems taken aback by my point that consequences are why we even care about deontology. To clarify this is basically saying that consequentialism can fit to any scenario where deontology can only make sweeping generalizations. For example most would say we ought not kill. This is deontology, and while often correct, may not apply to every single circumstance. My opponent then argues that consequentialism is subjective. Then again, morality tends to be that way in general which is why we are having this debate right now. My opponent asks "how do we know whether lying or saving the children would be worse." This is a great example of why consequentialism is better because deontologically there is no moral action. Lying would be bad, but allowing for death would also be bad. In this circumstance consequentialism may be the only means for man to decide at all! My opponent brings up the moral dilemma is it correct to kill 50 people to save your son." Deontologically you could not kill anyone to save your son. Consequentially you must outweigh the ends. Assuming they are criminals, as most murders can be classified as (lol), yes you would be justified because of the ideas of justice. Assuming they are innocent a consequentialist may argue that inaction would be a better consequence. The point is it allows for man to apply morality to the situation. Ultimately in this debate you are looking at voting con for a system of morality that works sometimes versus a way of applying morality to any situation. For these reasons consequentialism is superior. Look to every moral dilemma brought up, consequentialism answers these issues in a moral way every time where deontology only does sometimes.
is cod better than battlefield

sorry but gamercat all that means is we forfitted the round which means this argument is still on and from my last post as i said cod lacks the realism that battlefield at least attempts to add to the gamer which so far has worked as for example in battlefield 4 the sniper rifles have things like leading and bullet drop which are two things that can interfere with shooting in real life and i bet more people like to play realistic war games like battlefield more than games like cod
is cod better than battlefield

Well sorry to shoot down your statement but the A.G.R, VTOL and, lode star are all fictional vehicles in a game that takes place 12 years in the future and for the R.C.X.D that is a vehicle that may or may not be real and most of the "vehicles" in cod aren't vehicles at all which means they can't be proven as real but i can bring up articles, pictures and, websites about all the vehicles in battlefield
is cod better than battlefield

Well if cod is based off of war would it be fair in real life war is a very unfair thing and in battlefield they at least try to make the game fell real by and the fact that war can be unfair also in battlefield another thing they use to make the game fell at least a little real by letting you utilize vehicles and let them be used to your teams advantage and sometimes your teams disadvantage the reason i say this is in battlefield it allows you to use vehicles such as a helicopter or jet to rule the air so to say and tanks and jeeps to rule the land so to say unlike in cod if you see a tank all you can do is stand by it and use it for cover this is another reason i think that battlefield is better and more realistic
is cod better than battlefield

I do not think that call of duty is better that battlefield the reason I think this is cod doesn't have the realistic qualities that battlefield have for instance in cod you can walk up to someone and knife them in the foot and the guy/girl who was knifed in the foot will die instantaneously which in real life that is not likely that you will die from a knife to the foot but, in battlefield it goes into a sequence that if knifed from the front they can counter knife and kill the person knifing and if you're standing behind someone and knife you "sneak attack" the person so to say which is a direct cut to the throat which is extremely fatal.