BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Serious Debate: Justin Bieber is a space alien.

Counterpoint 1: "He lifted his under eyelids," actually, this is highly improbable. I tried to do that repeatedly before I posted this argument. I am in high school and have never done that. If I am unable to do that intentionally, then Bieber should also have a low probability of pulling it off.Its more probable that he either has jointed cartilage, a mutation, or a genetic effect. Saying he is a space alien with only a video has evidence does not fullfill the BOP.http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... Counterpoint 2: "Not proof of anything," yes it is. There is no other explanation for why he sings like a girl. If you imagine him singing "I Am... All of Me," there is no even half-functional singing voice he can sing it with. To reiterate my argument, he is 20 and could never functionally sing "I Am... All of Me," which is a manly song. If a twenty year old male cannot sing a manly song, then it is reasonable to believe that he is a space alien.That can be an effect of genetics, tetesterone, late puberty, or a hundred other medical reasons. And no, plenty of people are men and sound like women, just as many women sound like men. Note videos.... http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Communism is a better form of economics

I was meaning that of you wanted to debate with me on a different topic that needed less research at I would be willing to start that debate with out delay. I have been debating all my life, much to the annoyance of my friends and family. It has been a while since I was in a good debate over a complex topic. In my excitement over finding this site I forgot some simple things when debating. That simple ideas tend to be the hardest to show evidence for, that topic you think would be easy to research many times lead to hours of searching to find the relevant information, and that is becomes more difficult that you think to debate for and against a topic at the same time. In 5 days I ended up with 9 debates and a 10th debate in the forums. I had to admit that I have sent far to much time on my computer that what my personal life really allows. That I had one day left to post on this debate and had only done about 25% of my research on this debate. I would rather lose a debate by admitting this that quickly type up something that makes it clear I have no idea what I am talking about. I would like to keep my opponent as someone that would consider debating me in the future and not think I am not worth the time. If you link of a topic that is less broad you like to debate me on feel free to send me a message.
Communism is a better form of economics

Dear Comrade, it is really up to you if you want to debate.Yes, you're correct. This does seem like a very broad topic, and a time for research does need to be done if you want to discuss this subject. I haven't been using this site in quite a while. I created this account when I was young and foolish - I absolutely had no experience in debating what so ever. However, I am not willing to concur with you doing "less" research in this debate as you remarked. I am sorry, it is either that or else we'll have to try to come up with another solution for this. Well, we're running out of time here. So, I don't really think that you can keep going with this.
Communism is a better form of economics

I apologize to my opponent. I have bit of more that a can chew with my excitement over this site. I am currently in 7 debates and underestimated the amount of research needed in them. This debate calls for the most research and reading in order to debate effectively. In part because I under estimated how many works of Karl Marx I would need to reread in order to debate effectively. I would ask my opponent's understanding and look forward to debating with them again on this subject at a later time. If my opponent would like to debate on a topic calling for less research and am more that willing to debate them on that topic.
Communism is a better form of economics

-Thank you for your response, the BoP is going to be shared in this debate. In the following round, I would just like to say that my opponent omits the fact that communism always leads to corruption. Throughout this debate, I will show you that we could in fact enhance capitalism which therefore can benefit the people, but the problem with this economic system is it's not what it has used to be. Capitalism is becoming an imperialistic trade market (I will provide sources for this hypothesis). Karl Marx has published, "VII. IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM." In this following piece of work, Marx describes how capitalism emerged into an imperialistic system(1).You have also mentioned university and college students 'go broke' because of their accumulated loan debt. Well, look back at America during the 60s-90s, college was so much more inexpensive back then, and America wasn't operated under the communist rule - you really need to provide some credible resources for this if you're going to use it in your debate. Opening Statement:As we all know, Communism has always seen its demise through corruption. Look at the countries that are still adapting this system. Cuba is the only Marxist-Revolutionary state out there. Yes, you may think China, Vietnam and Laos have also adapted this system, but it's a common misconception. The countries that I've previously listed are Socialist-states, and there is a vast difference between a Socialism and communism. Capitalism is emerging into an imperialist market. My purpose in this debate is to show you that we should reform capitalism, not turn down on it. Believe me, communism will lead this nation into something more chaotic. Yes, greed as you say. Greed is a common instinct that all of us share. If you have read the book, Animal Farm you would see otherwise that communism is all about equality, but the characters in the book adopted the idea of being 'more' equal than other characters. Please don't make this common misconception.Sources:[1]: https://www.marxists.org...
Communism is a better form of economics

There is a problem in America, GREED. While most of the country struggles just to get by to many have more than they could ever use. Parents that work full time go hungry to provide for there children. People that have worked there whole lives are in poverty. They ability for one parent to stay at home has become a luxury that many can not afford. Many hard working students are going in to debt for degrees that are worthless. I will be showing how Communism is not what the propaganda tell you it is, it can help to solve these problems. I will also be showing how Capitalism does not work and why America does not have a true Capitalist economy.
Communism is a better form of economics

-Dear Opponent, thank for choosing such an interesting topic to debate over.-In this debate I will be debating why communism, a socioeconomic system is not worth for the American nation. I will be debating why capitalism still stands as a stellar economic system in our market, and why we're supposed to enhance it. Your rules seem quite vague, but I hope this is how you instructed your opponent to organize his/her argument. I concur with your terms that you've provided regarding if communism is a better economical system for the United States. As mentioned before, the system that I will be using will be capitalism, and why it's better for the United States to keep this system. To give you a little bit of background about myself I am an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy which advocates the omission of the state for the obtainment of individual sovereignty, private property and free markets. -Definition of Terms:-Capitalism: A way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government(1).-Individual Sovereignty (aka self-ownership): Is the idea of property belonging to one's self. According to moral and natural rights; it's the idea that a being must always have a non-controllable bodily integrity and a life dedicated to freedom(2). -Private Property: Tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, such as land, building, money, copyrights, patents, etc. Private property can be transferred only with its owners consent, and by due process such as sale or gift(3).-References:[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[3]: http://www.businessdictionary.com...
Communism is a better form of economics

The debate is if Communism is a better form of economics. All sorces most be sited!! Round one will be definition of terms: Communisum: The sum total of the ideas in The Communist Manifesto or expressed by Karl Marx on Communism after the date of it 1st publication of the The Communist Manifesto. proletariat/proletariat: Any one under American median wealth of $44,900 per adult. Bourgeoisie: Anyone over the median American CEO net worth of $9.9 Million CON AS THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS: Select any economic theory or system as long as the theroy or system was theroisied or in practice after 1900. To select any country for there argument. This is to ease CON's research of not American. While I am debating that Communism is better for America you may debate Soicalism is better for Brazil for example. If not debating about America then CON most agree to the following terms to ease PRO's research: Poor is less than 25% of the wealthiest citizens net worth Middle class is 26% to 70% of the wealthiest citizens net worth Wealthy/Rich is 70% to 100% of the wealthiest citizens net worth. CON Most state what economic theroy or system and country the are selecting in round one with there definition of terms. Round 2 will be opening statments, round 3 and 4 rebuttals, and round 5 closing statments
LSD should be legal under license

LSD was declared a "Schedule 1", entailing that the drug has a "high potential for abuse" and is without any "currently accepted medical use in treatment." Firstly please prove that LSD has a HIGH potential for abuse (addiction) AND that it there are NO medical uses. Some of the people who used LSD as inspiration for there inventions: Steve Jobs - Apple Products, Kary Mullis - The PCR Machin, Francis Crick - The DNA Double-Helix Concept, Kevin Herbert - Router Software, Douglas Engelbart - The Mouse. Think of where we would be without those inventions. LSD has been shown as one of the only treatments of cluster headaches. The only other being other psychedelics. This has been subjected to being the most painful condition known to humans and LSD can take that pain away when nothing else can. LSD is a victimless crime, a person takes it and will continue to trip peacefully and often with a "trip sitter" or sober person to ensure that things are kept under control. This is why I also argue to make it only legal under a license similar to firearms or a car. The participants would need to take a safety class and possibly pass a test in order to be able to buy the drug. Then the people will be able to trip peacefully while the people who want nothing to do with it, dont have to buy it. This combined with the fact that no one has ever died from an LSD overdose only enhances the safety of this chemical One of the first studies in over 40 years has shown the 100% of participants agreed that LSD helped with terminal illness anxiety. http://www.maps.org... http://www.neurology.org... http://www.justice.gov...
LSD should be legal under license

I accept and look forward to our debate. LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) is a psychodelic drug that alters thinking processes, closed- and open-eye visuals, synesthesia, an alter sense of time and spiritual experiences. There are a small number of significant people in the past who claim they were positively influenced by the drug. I honestly think they would have been significant without the use of a psychodelic drug. The medical uses are largely either unproven, inconclusive, or insignificant compared to alternatives. While LSD may have some potential medical uses there are preferable alternatives in modern medical science. The use of such psychodelic hallucinogens like LSD-25 has more cons than pros.
LSD should be legal under license

LSD-25 is a wonderful, magical chemical that has touched and improved many lives. It can open possibilities that have never even been dreamt of. Throughout the 20th century it has helped create some of the greatest scientific discoveries and inventions that we know of which includes the discovery of DNA. It has also led to the creation of tens of thousands of songs if not more. It also has medical uses and can treat a wide array of diseases and illnesses.
The End of the World (Cameronl35's R1 New Year's Tournament)

It's 2012, and that means the world is ending, soon.Resolved: We would save no one.This debate is for Round 1 of cameronl35's tournament.Please note that both 16kadams and I have agreed to debate this resolution.Details:- We are the American Government- With special technology, we have deduced that the world is going to end in a month- We have built a special bunker- The special bunker can only hold 50 people, maximum- This means you do not have to take 50 people, you can take say 10 if you wishWe have two choices here. We can choose to save people, or save no one from the disaster of the world ending.Burden of Proof:As Pro, I must prove that saving no one will be a much more moral choice, and much more humane. It would be a choice that upholds the values of the human race. Essentially, it is better to die free, than to live in squalor and chaos. As Con, 16kadams must prove that saving people from the disaster is the best choice, regardless of morals and values. Essentially, the possible continuity of the human race outweighs any moral or humane implications. Other:As this is a would case, CON must implement a method to which these people would be chosen. There are no real definitions that must be defined, it is pretty straight forward.Round 1 acceptance, arguments will be posted later. There are really no sources that we can use, as this is a fun, light hearted debate.It is assumed that the world will end through asteroids, earthquakes, tsunami's, sun flares, those good stuff. Rules:No plagiarism.No ad hominem.I look forward to this debate.
Resolved: The USFG should eliminate its nuclear armed ICBM force

Resolution: Resolved: The USFG should eliminate its nuclear armed ICBM force Context and Definitions: USFG= United States Federal Government ICBM force= Intercontinental Ballistic Missile force; the roughly 450 existing silos, staff, and facilities supporting the ICBM. Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round. 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. The artificial character constraints listed below MUST be adhered to. Rounds should telescope in length as the debate focuses on the salient points of debate. The total characters for this debate is equal to a three round debate but is spread over four rounds. 6. Pro accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions. Any dispute over definitions outside of R1 are to be resolved through argumentation within the debate. 7. BOP is shared. The winner of this debate is whichever side best supports their case. 8. R1 is for acceptance only. 9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss. Structure: R1. Acceptance R2. Constructive Cases R3. Constructive Cases R4. 6k character Rebuttals R5. 4k character Rebuttals
Flag Burning Deserves To Be Allowed And Protected

Thanks for the debate, ol' chap. 1. Ah, I violated a cardnial rule of debate, "Never start a sentence with, 'I think,'". Mrs. Freeman (my debate teacher) would be very disappointed. Anyways, you can not start a public fire without written consent from the city. To do so without it is illegal and disturbing the peace by arson. Furthermore, I doubt a city would or ever has in America to publicly burn the American flag. Reason being, is because it disturbs the peace anyways. If it's done for attention, then they're trying to attract negative attention, and that is not the point of protesting. 2. I defined the word descrate, and my source was not discredited. It is possible to describe something as violent without it causing direct harm. For example, a violent sneeze. The sneeze didn't beat up anyone, but it could still be described as such. It is a violent protest by your definition and the way you used the term desecrate. 3. I never stated this WAS treason. I said it acted as a SYMBOL for overthrowing the government by burning a symbolic flag in a public, symbolic manner. When WBC stated, "America is going to be destroyed. " It conjours up an image of the government being overthrown. The statement itself wasn't treason, but you get the point that she is saying the government will be destroyed. The flag represents America. To burn it wanting public attention implies and draws to a symbol that America will burn/be destroyed. 4. If they do it on their property, they're not calling for public attention, which is what you said is the purpose of burning a flag. So, based on what you said, it seems unlikely they'll do it in their yard, because it would be a closed audience. If they're in public, they have a captive audience. After all, who wouldn't feel compelled to watch an American flag burning live in Time's Square?
Flag Burning Deserves To Be Allowed And Protected

To start, I will point out a few problems with my opponent's contentions and rebuttals: 1. My opponent investigated and defined "desecrate", an action which is amicable, but he said that "I do not think that violently disrespecting something is a good idea. " The point of a constitutional right is to uphold the law and give rights to citizens, not to pay lip service to people's opinions. Just because one person doesn't agree with a law doesn't mean that it shouldn't be enacted or enforced. The Constitution protects ALL freedom of speech and expression, no matter how unpopular. Secondly, he noted that flag burning "provokes the peace". That is the point of flag burning. It is not meant to be done without notice. Flag burning is done for attention. One may not agree with that sentiment, but it is certainly a flagrant and open way of expressing distaste for particular policies. 2. This leads to a moment of definition for my side: the word "violence", which means "the use of force to apply a state to others contrary to their wishes. " (wikipedia. org) My opponent says that burning the flag is a violent protest. But burning the flag doesn't harm the government, rather, it is an individual's expression of distaste. It is not intended to harm anyone. Strategies such as assaulting police officers, destroying property and smashing store windows are violent protests (which are and should be illegal). If there is no direct victim of the act, there is no real violence. Flag burning isn't criminal. There are no intended targets. Therefore, it is not violent. This also negates my opponent's first contention that desecration is violent. Not necessarily. If the act is not violent, it is not a violent protest. 3. As for my opponent's second contention, that burning the flag is treason and other methods of protest be used, may I direct him to the Code of Laws of the United States regarding the definition and punishment for treason: "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason. " [1] Considering that this is the official legal definition of treason, flag burning doesn't seem to count. It doesn't levy war against the United States or give our enemies aid or comfort. It is not a malicious act, but rather one that is used for distaste, not support of our enemies. It is merely an expression of a political nature, and freedom of expression is constitutionally protected. 4. My opponent's third contention is that flag burning could be a safety issue, which is valid enough. However, if it is done on one's own property and every ordinance is in order, it should be approved of. And keeping the peace would not be necessary if it is done on one's own property and every ordinance is in order. [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Flag Burning Deserves To Be Allowed And Protected

Thank you for this challenge. I shall start with my rebuttals and move to contentions. REBUTTALS: 1. My opponent states the first amendment protects the right to desecrate something as they see fit. Desecrate *(www. dictionary. com) is defined as: "Treat (a sacred place or thing) with violent disrespect; violate". I do not think that violently disrespecting something is a good idea, and it provokes the peace. If it provokes the peace, then it is a civil safety hazard. The government is obligated to protect civilian safety, and must put a stop to it, for it is the reason of government. 2. My opponent states, "The opposition to flag burning stems from the materialistic mentality that objects are equal to ideas, which they are not. " He is stating that objects are not equal to ideas. However, he contradicts himself later by saying this: "It is a constitutional right that protects citizens who want to show their opinion of the government or its policies. " He is stating that flag burning shows protest by displaying opinion of government. He is now stating that burning the object is equal to an idea. Seeing as he described flag burning as desecrating, by definition it is a violent protest, something that is not allowed in the United States. CONTENTIONS: 1. Peaceful Protest- My opponent said the public has the oppritunity to desecrate as they see fit. The definition of desecrate is a violent act. Only peaceful protesting is allowed in the USA. 2. Provoking the peace- Desecrating the American flag is a violent act, that may incite harm on both ends. Since this act provokes the peace, and acts a symbol of overthrowing the government (treason), then this act must be stopped. They should be informed of more effective and less provoking methods of protesting. 3. Safety- Burning anything is a safety hazard unless knowledge and a permit is earned, and in some cases of flag burning, this is not the case. Furthermore, referring to no.2, the government is obligated to keep the peace.
Flag Burning Deserves To Be Allowed And Protected

The first amendment of the Constitution calls for freedom of expression, and the ability to desecrate something as they see fit should be allowed. The opposition to flag burning stems from the materialistic mentality that objects are equal to ideas, which they are not. It is petty for someone to think that flag burning is unpatriotic, but it is rather in rebellion with the bloated, nationalistic attitude our country has expressed in recent years. As someone who lives by the doctrine of "if it doesn't harm anyone else, do it if you like", I think flag burning fits snugly into this category. It is a constitutional right that protects citizens who want to show their opinion of the government or its policies. Government does not deserve the supremacy that banning of flag burning would suggest. This is a right of the populace which should be preserved.