BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Nationalism is better than globalism.

I'll continue the arguments in the same order. 1. For this argument you never actually touched the point I was getting at. My point is that every national government has a duty to provide for its citizens. This was outlawed in the social contract created by John Locke. A government has to try to help its citizens before anything else or it is failing its citizens and that breaking the social contract. The point you brought up is nationalism divides us and caused the World Wars. I believe this to be a gross inclusion on the behalf of nationalism. You are counting racism as nationalism which is unfair. World War II was due to Hitler's racism. He thought his RACE was best and Germany was the country of his RACE. He wanted to spread his country for the fact of exterminating other races while taking over other countries was just a byproduct of the genocide of Jews, gays, and blacks. (I'm going to divide the US foreign aid example and the argument of countries doing better than a world government. If you feel they should be the same argument, then combine them again. Sorry.) 2. The US spends tons of money to help other countries and you said that the only accomplishment the US gets out of it is warm feelings. That's not enough. You said innocents die, but that happens in America as well. I digress back to argument 1 when I say that innocents die in the United States and until we cut out every unnecessary death in our own country, then we shouldn't help others. I should I give a foreign child food when there are just as many starving kids in the US? I'm not saying we should never ever help foreign countries, but until our country is as perfect as possible and we have surplus cash. 3. On to the question of if a country does better than the world united. It's a matter of keeping a close eye on things. You can't take everything on without biases or even mistakes. One government can't watch the whole world. That's why states and cities exist. You said under a democratic world government, terror wouldn't exist. (I will cover the democratic part of that in argument 4.) A world government would cause even more terrorism, crime, unemployment, etc. It's because an issue wouldn't even be recognized by the world government until it got big enough to affect the planet. 4. On to the last point, the world government would be full of differences. I think there is a great misjudgment in the fervor of communist, fascist and otherwise bad governments. North Korea would not give up their fascism without question. China would not give up communism without question. Middle Eastern nations would not give up their persecution of Jews without question. You said extremists would try to revert the damage at the beginning but I think this would be the biggest problem. If no country can pick a single party without causing inherently evil fascist government, then how would adding more people and opinions make it any better? Opinion: I don't dislike globalists or their views. I just feel that only people looking out for themselves will equal any sort of good outcomes.
Resolved: Nationalism is better than globalism.

If you were homeless and starving, would you give money to the Salvation Army? That's what globalism is in a sense because, in countries like the United States, we are trillions of dollars in debt. To top it all off, we have a foreign aid budget. We don't have enough money for ourselves, but we still feel the need to inject ourselves into every foreign affair. I propose three arguments why nationalism is inherently better than globalism. 1. Until a country isn't in debt and leading in every possible way (military, education, jobs, scientific research, etc.) they don't have the materials to spare to other countries without betraying their citizens for not giving them the best in these fields. 2. If I told you to watch one kid, it would be easy. Heck, if I told you to watch 20 like-minded kids, it wouldn't be too difficult. Now, what if I told you to watch 193 kids, each completely different, some with guns, and a lot of previous conflicts including past fights. Let's rename the example to the point I was getting at by saying the 193 United Nations member nations, some with nuclear weapons (guns) and a lot of heated tensions (India-China, Argentina-United Kingdom).There is no way that could be governed efficiently. National governments make sure you that you are getting the best for your nation and you are having a closer eye on yourself rather than if it was a global government. 3. For my final argument, I would like to point out that a global government would be impossible to establish. The world is too different from another. Would we have a one-party autocracy like Russia, China, and North Korea or a democracy like the United States, Britain, and France? If we had the same government with different parties that would be one thing, but we don't even have close to the same government, economic or social setting making it impossible for true beliefs to come out. (I'm aware it might seem confusing because I jumped from a country being globalist to a global government, but the point is pure globalism versus pure nationalism, so we need to debate it in all states it comes in.)
Logos referring to Native Americans should be banned

You provide some good points, but I believe that my stance is more logical. I would like to sum up my side of the argument to voters. I am against the banning of Native American logos in sports and other such industries because it is not degrading them in any way. It is promoting their culture and displaying their attributes such as bravery, courage, and fighting skills. My opponent argued that it is no job of the Caucasian race to promote the Native race. If his argument was anti-stereotype, he just came to an assumption, a stereotype: not everybody involved in Native American logos is Caucasian. In fact, some tribes, as I pointed out earlier, have fought for and have sued to have sports teams named after their tribe. My opponent's argument is that it is offensive to all Native Americans - which can be proved false. According to a survey done a few years ago, 81 percent of Natives living off of reservations and 53 percent living on reservations did not find their use offensive. So why are Indian activists concerned that their use might offend Native Americans? Because - according to my opponent - they distort the culture of Native Americans, which I disagree with. The logos might focus heavily upon Native culture during times of battle, but that it because they are in battle - a sports battle! And if they did, somehow, distort their culture, it would be nothing more than a stereotype. And stereotypes are found everywhere - in a black woman speaking about fried chicken, in an Asian doing homework. In Muslims being stereotyped as terrorists. The list goes on and on. Yet my opponent does not believe those are offensive as the use of Native logos - which, I already stated, are not offensive to a majority of Native Americans. It is not demeaning to Native culture, and if it were, it would be nothing more than a stereotype. My opponent stated that the use of Native American logos demeans them, because we don't think of Indian lawyers, doctors, etc. Let me state that this is for good reason - sports teams don't want some lawyer or a doctor as their mascot! They want someone memorable, someone that represents bravery, courage, fighting, etc. Lastly, my opponent stated that Native American suicide is up above any other race. He failed to correlate this to the use of Native American logos. He stated that reservations and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is also to blame. Let me remind him, and the voters, that we were debating on the topic of Native American logos - not reservations and the Bureau. He failed to correlate it to the use of Native American logos - which I asked him to do. Simply, I believe that if a Native American tribe don't want their name used for a sports team, they have a right to say "No!" But if a team wants their name to be that of a sports team, and the team is willing to do so, than they should have the ability to make an agreement. My opponent wishes to ban these logos entirely. I believe that a majority of Native Americans and tribes would disagree - and therefore, their use should not be banned. Vote for the debater who made the more logical argument.
Logos referring to Native Americans should be banned

1. "Indians represent bravery, courage, and fighting. " -It does not matter what venue you represent them in! The practices and traditions that you are portraying are still sacred and you are demeaning them by perpetuating a stereotype. Cowardice and weakness are not equitable to peace whatsoever, and imitating their war dances and attire during battle is still degrading them whether you realize it or not. "And is this so-called stereotype any more vicious than "blacks like fried chicken" or "all Asians are smart"? No! " -Those stereotypes are not perpetuated on a national scale and do not degrade those races in any manner. Blacks do enjoy fried chicken, and a large portion of Asians are indeed smart, but it is a false analogy to compare those examples with something as integral to the Native Americans as life and death and attempting to protect their livelihood, which is exactly what happens when we allow schools to present mascots that represent such practices. -I have already addressed the majority of my opponents arguments but I do wish to address your disbelief that Natives are suffering and your belief that they are treated as equals. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... An analysis of Wisconsin suicide data from 1999 to 2008 by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism found: a02;The overall suicide rate among Native Americans was 16 deaths per 100,000 people " at least 25 percent higher than Wisconsin"s overall rate of about 12 deaths per 100,000. a02;The suicide rate among native people was significantly higher than rates for the other ethnic and racial groups " including about 12 per 100,000 for whites, 9 for Asians, 7 for blacks, and 6 for Hispanics. a02;Menominee County, dominated by the Menominee Indian Reservation with a majority Native American population, had the highest suicide rate of any Wisconsin county with nearly 30 deaths per 100,000 " two times higher than the national rate for non-Hispanic Native Americans. -The above is from . http://www.wisconsinwatch.org... . http://www.teenhelp.com... . http://www.seattlepi.com... . http://tempxyp2440ym0wn.blogspot.com... -I would kindly ask you to read those articles and then tell me if you disbelieve my earlier claims. -Finally, Native are by no means considered equal. The fact that they are still required to live on reservations and are regulated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be proof; however, I will provide more if needed. . http://www.progressive.org... . http://socyberty.com... . http://clevelandsearch.com... -As before, please read those articles that explain in detail how unfairly the Native Americans are treated in today's world.
Logos referring to Native Americans should be banned

I also hope to continue this debate in a civilized manner and am eager to hear what you have to say as well. My arguments: 1. It should be considered mockery -They are distorting the Native Americans, plain and simple. The act of reducing and minimizing an ethnicity or a practice that is an intrinsic aspect of their culture is, in actuality, portraying it as nothing more than a token of identification for something as trivial as sports. -I am an atheist as well as a vegetarian. If a mascot were to be created that portrayed an "evil" or "demonic" figure who does not believe in god or a vegetable prancing around a stadium, I would take offense to that. Taking something that is regarded as sacred, such as a tribal attire or dance, and misrepresenting it should not be condoned. . http://youtu.be...... . http://youtu.be...... -Those two videos are prime examples of how white men have distorted the sacred beliefs and traditions of a long-forgotten race. -I believe mascots referencing ethnicities or races in any manner that does not accurately represent them should be illegal and a hate crime, that is what I seek to defend in my following arguments. (Also the reason a lot of people would find the aforementioned decision to label such mascots as illegal to be incoherent is due to the fact that Native Americans are not well represented in any aspect of society. ) 2. Would only perpetuate their suffering -The Native Americans have already been tormented to an unacceptable and reprehensible degree and that in and of itself should be reason enough to not diminish there significance as an ethnicity anymore. -The Native Americans have been treated as if they are not people but instead savages, and therefore I believe using their beliefs and traditions as playthings to be culpable to the highest degree. . http://avalon.law.yale.edu...... -The above link lists all the treaties that have been formed between the United States government (not including all the agreements formed BEFORE the birth of the United States as a sovereign nation) and the tribes that inhabited the land. Of all those treaties (totaling over 500), every single one has been broken. -The Native Americans are also the only race to be regulated by an agency under the jurisdiction of the United States. (The Bureau of Indian Affairs. ) They are also confined to reservations where white farmers have the ability to purchase the lands from the federal government WITHOUT the consent of the Native Americans. (I will provide a source for the previous statement in the next round) (I will also expound upon my arguments mentioned above in the next round)
Running is a Sport

Running is ONLY a sport if you are putting a comparison between you and others as a sort of contest. You're implying that if you run (like running across the road) it is immediately considered a sport. I believe this stands as one of your fatal flaws because you are not going in further depth 'why' you 'think' it's a sport. This is a point of clash in this debate and so far you are failing to affirmate the topic. I believe my point shall stand because running is not always necessarily a sport but something we are not to compare with others, just a human characteristic that we use for many things, instinct of survival, to get to a point quicker etc, it's not mainly for competing. This concludes my composition to this argument.
D-VHS is a Viable Home Video Format.

The Digital VHS is not as compact as the DVD, but can hold more data. Sure, a 100 pack of DVD's costs less than a 20 pack of DVHS, it holds more than 2 times more (470 GB vs. 1,000 GB). On another note, many people are going the route of streaming on Netflix and Hulu, and using OTA antennas to watch new programming not on streaming services as well as small, local programing. But, you want just hit the record button with an antenna, so a DVHS VCR would be one of the easiest ways to record, without any need to worry about DVR space, also leaving the ability to join seasons of shows (not on Hulu/Netflix) together over tapes without needing to delete them.
D-VHS is a Viable Home Video Format.

However advanced it was for its time, Digital VHS does not compare to modern mechanisms of storing data. Video streaming is much more viable. Video streaming allows for watching home videos without need for any type of data storage. The only disadvantage would be the lag in connection, however the average download speed in the US is ~5 Mb/s. Even if this is not available, DVD is not only more widespread and universal, DVDs can hold 4.7 GBs. Now if everything costed $20, that would be fine. But you can buy a pack of 100 DVDs for $25. (-Amazon, Verbatim) Whereas I would ask you to submit the cost of a DVHS for comparison. The price of DVDs is what lead to them taking over DVHS. DVDs are now being given a run for there money by streaming services.
D-VHS is a Viable Home Video Format.

Digital VHS (D-VHS) was introduced in 1998 by JVC as a High-Definiton edition of the well known analog format of tape recording. D-VHS tapes are able to reach up to 1080i resolution and, even when recording in STD (Standard) mode, surpass the DVD' s bitrate. The D-VHS format is less comparable to the VHS and DVD formats than it is to Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, with D-VHS tapes being not only able to hold 49 hours of video (DF-420 tape recording at LS7 speed) but also able to hold 50 GB of digital computer data (On a DF-480 tape). With more advertising, this format definitely could have been larger than DVD. With the return of the vinyl record into mainstream stores, and other interests being born into the rebirthing of older formats of entertainment, DVHS could make a good comeback.
Libertarian philosophy supports the pro-choice position

===Resolution and BoP===The topic up for debate here will be the correct application of libertarian ethics to the issue of abortion. The Pro will argue that the correct application leads one to the pro-choice side of the debate while the Con will argue that it leads to the pro-life side. The primary BoP will lie with Pro and so Pro must provide a positive case in support of the resolution while Con must merely disprove Pro's case in order to fulfill their burden. Note that Con's burden does not preclude choosing to provide a positive case of their own.===Definitions===Libertarian philosophy and ethics refer to the concepts of both self ownership and the non-aggression principle. Self ownership refers to "the moral or natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of his own body and life."[1] The non-aggression principle is the ethical concept that aggression is inherently illegitimate with aggression being defined as the initiation of physical force against one's person or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon someone[2].For libertarian philosophy, ethics to support either the pro-life or pro-choice positions means that the correct application of that philosophy to the problem of abortion should lead one to support a specific side of the issue in order to be in accordance with libertarian philosophy or ethics.To be pro-life means to support the notion that "the government has an obligation to preserve all human life, regardless of intent, viability, or quality-of-life concerns."[3] Pro-choice means that one supports the notion that "the government does not have the right to impede a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy."[3] ===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation will begin in R2.===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://wiki.mises.org... [3] http://civilliberty.about.com...
Every Black Gang Member should be forced to work in the mines.

Observation 1: The resolution encompasses every single black gang member, not for example 99%. Observation 2: The word should signifies a moral obligation, therefore the decision we make must uphold the value of morality. Observation 3: This resolution specifically states forced, therefore physical force would have to be applied. Observation 4: Pro has to prove that making enough mines for every black gang member is even feasible. Gang- a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends; especially : a band of antisocial adolescents https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abkhazia and South Ossetia should not be independent from Georgia

Good in the voting, but not too much luck! === Historical Background === Despite what Pro says about a "mystical origin" requirement for Caucasus independence, there are internationally recognized methods of obtaining legitimacy. The peoples of the Caucasus region should not be given extra requirements. I hope the reader will note that my point about there being no way for an oppressed minority, such as the Ossetians and Obkhaz, to escape said oppression and separate into a new state by Pro's requirements for statehood. Pro mentions a few regions that are have a Georgian majority. My response to his question is that if those regions wish to rejoin Georgia, then yes. Finally, Pro once again misrepresents my position. He tries to take my argument to an extreme and say that a population majority lasting but a few months is not legitimate grounds for changing the boundaries. On that he would be correct, but that is not what I have argued. The Ossetians and Abkhaz have lived in their respective regions for generations, not months. One final point to reiterate is that I have shown a long historical background of Ossetians and the Abkhaz desiring and fighting the Georgians for independence. These ethnic groups clearly cannot live in peace, so why should they be forced to remain a single nation? === Conflict === Ignorance === There is nothing more to be said on these topics that has not already been said. === Self Determination vs. Territorial Integrity === Pro once again makes a claim that have several times countered. An ethnic group is not limited to a singe nation, otherwise the English, Irish, Scots, Germans, etc. living in North America should either migrate back to Europe and give the land back to native tribes, or submit to new governments run by native tribes. The point is, there is no rule or precedent that says that an ethnic group should be limited to one and only one nation. There is plenty of precedent to say otherwise.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia should not be independent from Georgia

In August, 2008, the Russian Federation recognised the independence of the Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia following the crushing defeat of the Georgian army during the Second War in South Ossetia. Since then, this act has been followed by Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Nauru. However, I do not believe those so-called republics should be independent. First of all, there is no historical background to support the independence of the regions from the Georgian center. Also, it must be argued that it would be the worst situation for the Caucasus if these lands do get their independence, since it would bring a never-ending conflict between Georgians, Ossetians, and Abkhazs. Finally, I believe Abkhazia and South Ossetia's population are not aware of their own cultural and historical background and it would be a tragedy once they learn the truth about Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian conflicts.
vegans are the cause of the exinction of animals

As it should be, the breeding of farm animals is reduced with veganism. This does not however mean they would go extinct.From my personal life, I know of a family that breeds a rare breed of cattle for shows and events. The males are raised as oxen rather then sent to death. They care a lot for all of there cattle.More commonly is the increasing trend of keeping chickens as pets. The reason we have so many farm animals is not due to fear breeding, but because large scale farms use bull semen to directly fertilize the cow without needing the bull directly involved. Other types of animalsWe do not need the amount of farm animals we have.We have over twenty billion chickens worldwide.In a world with only eight billion people.https://www.statista.com...http://www.wideopenpets.com...
vegans are the cause of the exinction of animals

vegetarians alone save around 25 animals per year by not eating meat and reducing demand. They also save the environment, and farming space as it takes more grain to raise meat than to just eat it."A staggering 60% of global biodiversity loss is down to the food we eat." -The Guardian.http://www.countinganimals.com...https://www.theguardian.com...