BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gary Johnson is our best choice for president

Pros for JohnsonI would like to first talk about Johnson's time as a republican. While I normally don't find it important to bring up, but people often bring it up, but Johnson's achievements as a Republican are not meaningless just because he is now a Libertarian, for as a republican, Johnson upheld a strictly Libertarian sort of Raegan Coolidge like platform, so nothing really changed except party. Now I would like to talk about his time as governer of New Mexico. He achieved a huge approval ration in a state where democrats out number republicans 2 to 1. He also left a statte previously struggling terribly with budget problems with a huge $1 billion budget surpluss. He also constructed two privately funded prisons, meaning the government doesn't pay for it. He vetoes more costly bills then all other governers combined. He also started a major road building program and shifted medicaid to a more efficient managed care. I think that these show that Johnson would be a very solid choice for presidentCons for Jill Stein Unlike a debate between Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump, I speculate that this debate will mostly be left up to the pros, not the cons. I can't really criticize Jill Stein to much because she has never held an elective office. Which simply leaves me with lack of experience. We can't simply let someone who has little to no knowledge of how to work in government. And Jill Stein graduating Harvard cannot be used to soldify her claims, as no political courses were taken, and she only took medical related courses.
Gary Johnson is our best choice for president

In this debate I am not focused on who will win, as that doesn't matter, I am going to prove that of the four remaining candidates, Hillary Clinton, Democrat, Donald Trump, Republican, Gary Johnson, Libertarian, and Jill Stein, Green, that Gary Johnson is the best. My only rules are that you pick one of these four candidates and that you are respectful and civil throughout the debate. Also please do not make any arguments round 1 as it is for acceptance only. The only thing I need is for you to say the candidate you support.
The M1 Garand was superior to any other rifle in service during WWII.

The issue at hand is whether the Cal. .30, M1 rifle, or "Garand" was the best rifle available to those in combat during World War 2. As the Pro has stated, this selection is not limited in country or caliber. In this claim I will work to object, and provide alternative, that the Sturmgewehr 44, referred hereafter as the "StG 44" was in fact the superior rifle. The basic specifications of the rifle in question: Weight: 10.2 pounds empty, 11.5 pound with loaded magazine Length: 37 inches Muzzle velocity: 2,247 ft/s Maximum effective range: 320 yards automatic, 650 yards semiautomatic Rate of fire: 550-600 rounds per minute Magazine capacity: 30 round detachable box magazine Cartridge: 7.92 x 33mm Kurz The StG 44 heralded the coming of modern infantry warfare by providing its users with a light weapon capable of a large volume of accurate fire at reasonable engagement distances. The intermediate cartridge allowed for a magazine capacity normally exclusive to pistol caliber submachine guns, but was still accurate at battlefield engagement distances. Fitted with a selective fire control, a single soldier could easily switch between suppressing fire and accurate semiautomatic fire, reducing the weapon specialization in a group by allowing each soldier to support one another equally. By providing soldiers with a shorter weapon, their effectiveness at congested indoor fighting is unhampered compared to full rifles available to others, without any loss of effectiveness at longer ranges. The light weight of the Kurz round enabled soldiers to carry more ammunition, remaining combat ready for longer into engagements. The use of detachable box magazines allowed for quicker reloads than the stripper or en bloc alternatives that other rifles offered. All of these features are now standard feature on modern military rifles, such as the American M-16 pattern rifles, Russian AK-47 and 74 pattern rifles, German G36 and Swiss SG 550 rifles, as well as many many other. It has been said the the StG 44 was the first "modern" assault rifle. With all of the modern features implemented into a single rifle so early in history, it is clear that the StG 44 is the superior rifle. Thank you. -DS
The M1 Garand was superior to any other rifle in service during WWII.

General George S. Patton, Jr. was quoted as saying "In my opinion, the M-1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised."[1] Whether or not the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, hereafter referred to as the "M1 Garand" or "Garand", was the best battle implement ever devised is a bit of a stretch. However, the M1 Garand can easily be considered the best rifle to have been in service during World War II. --- Some ground-rules: - For rebuttal, my opponent may compare the M1 Garand to one or multiple rifles in service during World War 2. The rifle(s) may be from any country and in any caliber. - "Superior" in this case should be defined by two characteristics: 1. Most effective as a battle implement. 2. Able to be used in the widest variety of combat situations. - Neither myself nor my opponent may vote for ourselves in this debate. --- To initially cover off on the basic specifications of the rifle [2]: Weight: appx. 9.5-10.5 lb Length: 43 in Muzzle Velocity: 2,750-2,800 fps Maximum Effective Range: 500 yd Max. Effective Rate of Fire: 16-24 aimed rounds per minute Cartridges per Clip: 8 Type of Round: .30 caliber Sights: Aperture Sight (M1), Scope/Telescope(M1C, M1D) The benefit of the M1 Garand over its predecessor, the bolt-action Model 1903 Springfield, is that the Garand is a semi-automatic rifle. This semi-automatic operation gave the American infantry a significant advantage in firepower and shot-for-shot recovery time over enemy infantry (German, Italian and Japanese) who were typically still using bolt-action rifles. [3] The rifle's 30.06 round provided the operator with a significant advantage in firepower. In closer combat, the penetration of the powerful round often allowed a soldier to kill up to three enemy combatants with one shot. [4] Not only useful for lining up a shot, the Garand's front sight can also be used as a very accurate range finder, particularly when firing at a man-sized target. Additionally, if the operator knows their "come-ups", the rifle can be quickly adjusted for firing accurately at anywhere from 25-500 yd.[5] I look forward to my opponent's initial rebuttal. ------------------- References: [1] Duff, Scott, The M1 Garand, World War II, p. 107. Facsimile of a letter from LTG G.S. Patton, Jr; Cdr, 3rd Army; to MG Levin Campbell, Jr.; Chief of Ordnance, War Department. Written 26 Jan 1945. [2] "U.S. Department of the Army Technical Manual No. 9-1005-222-12" [3] Rottman, Gordon L. (2006). U.S. Marine Rifleman 1939-45: Pacific Theater. Osprey Publishing. pp. 27–28. ISBN 1-84176-972-X. [4] George, John (Lt. Col.). (1948). Shots Fired In Anger. The Samworth Press. ISBN 0-935998-42-X. [5] http://becomingriflemen.wordpress.com...
juveniles charged with a violent felony ought to be treated as adults in the USA

Greetings, once again! My opponent seems determined to muddy the resolution with semantics. Though his resolution doesn't mention "delinquents," it does mention that the juveniles have been arrested, thus making them delinquent. My opponent also contends that I didn't address the case of rape. That is because if juvenile offenders were charged and sentenced in an adult court, but sent to a juvenile facility, his entire case on the matter is refuted, and I already have done so. "He just admitted that he is debating the charged phase , yet he keeps saying a young child should be held accountable for their actions" Why does a child need to commit a felony to be held accountable for their actions? Isn't a child responsible for lying? Most children comprehend that lying is wrong. Or cheating, for example. If a teenager cheated on a test, is s/he not held responsible? "I'm pretty sure no teenager laughsn at the prospect of being sent to a facility away from their friends and being restricted." It is apparent that some either simply do not care about the conditions of juvenile detention, or they believe that the profits are better than the consequences (or that they won't get caught). Of course they do not laugh, but does this mean that the juveniles charged with violent crime against another human should merely be tried in a juvenile court and given a couple of months community service as a sentence? I think not! My opponent states that a "gun" and a "car" are fundamentally different, and then seems to believe that voting isn't so? And I must conclude. I apologize for the brevity of this round, but I will be away from the computer for the entire day, tomorrow. Cheerio and good luck in the voting, 1st Lord of the Venerability
juveniles charged with a violent felony ought to be treated as adults in the USA

Thanks for hosting the debate! Your response was certainly astonishing, I might say. : ) I hope you enjoyed creating it. Firstly, I've never stated that all juveniles are horrible murderers. This is especially true since all young people are "juvenile," and it is only the "juvenile delinquents" that this debate regards. I tend to concur that one is innocent until proved guilty, and I also contend that the wording "Charged" just makes my case stronger. You see, if a person is charged, the police have apprehended the suspects and either have caught them in the act or compiled substantial evidence against them. Therefore, they are charged and perhaps held before the time of their hearing, where the judge must assume that they are innocent of crime until the Crown/State attorney parades evidence before him/her. I very adamantly stated that juvenile institutions would remain, in accordance to your premise. Only the most serious of (or repetitive) violent felonies or murders would result in incarceration at an adult penitentiary. An individual holding cell in a jail cell is to be expected, until the time of trial (especially since it occurs, now). The core behind "Treated as adults" is very simply that they be treated in such a manner before the law (during the charge, jury session and sentence). Adult courts can just as capably sentence a juvenile to a maximum security juvenile detention facility as a juvenile court can (except in a more stringent manner). My opponent states, "So are you telling me a six year old is going to have as much moral intuition as an elder." Obviously, he completely bypasses the clear points I created regarding the valid "Age of Responsibility," which he agreed with. Anybody under the age of twelve is not legally responsible. Legal "Age of responsibility" also rebuts his attempts to establish that, "If a child is to young to vote or bear arms, a child is to young to be sentenced in an adult court." Legal Age of Responsibility does exist, and is valid. What about permitting fifteen and sixteen year olds to drive, potentially endangering the lives of hundreds? My opponent has not addressed that the people within this age comprehend the consequences. Therefore, insofar, this crucial portion of the debate rests in my favour. I'm also not sure if my opponent is maintaining that violent crime is permissible to the impoverished, or those with a good reason, in line one. My opponent has not addressed the seriousness of gang crime. Furthermore, minimizing the use of juvenile courts to lesser offenses will save valuable tax dollars. That's all. Thanks. Rob
Schools should be teaching about real-life related things more, and remove a lot of their subjects

I will give you eight words to kick this debate off. School does not prepare you for real life. Why though? Well, it's simple. They do not teach you how to live in the real world. We are taught a lot of things in school that do not apply in real life. Calculus is a good example. Bill Gates gave a speech about real life and listed eleven useful things school did not teach you. He stated that school does not teach you that life is not fair, the world does not care about you, you probably will not make a lot of money once you graduate high school, bosses are a lot tougher than teachers, flipping burgers is not below your dignity, if you mess up, it's your fault, your parents were not boring before you were born, but got boring taking care of you, life does do away with winners and losers, there are no semesters or summer vacations, and employers do not care, TV is not real life, and to be nice to nerds. Now, onto another important point. School teaches you things that are dangerous in real life. Forbes made a list of nine dangerous things school has taught you. The first one was that the people in charge have all the answers. Not true; not even the slightest bit true. The second one was learning ends when you leave the classroom. I do not have to explain this one. Number three was the best and brightest follow the rules. There are plenty of bright people in this world that were the best in school that are mean. Apparently, Donald Trump was a bright student, but he is not a nice man. Number four was quote: "What the books say is always true." There are plenty of lies in school textbooks, that can be detected in school textbooks; for example, the story of Thanksgiving's origins (all of it). Number five was quote: "There is a very clear, single path to success." I do not need to explain this one as well. Number six was saying that being a good person is as important as getting good marks. That is wrong by a long shot. Your marks are not anywhere near important as staying alive. Number seven was quote: "Standardized tests measure your value." Standardized tests mean absolutely nothing. Number eight was quote: "Days off are always more fun than sitting in the classroom. Being in class can be quite fun when you are actually learning something useful. And finally, number nine was quote: "The purpose of your education is your future career." Sorry, but your education does not help you in your future career (not in the U.S.A. anyway). I will end this round with what I have. Sources are at the bottom. http://www.forbes.com... http://www2.hawaii.edu...
Schools should be teaching about real-life related things more, and remove a lot of their subjects

The education system in America is flawed. It needs to be improved. Investment in education needs to be a higher priority. That said, simply abandoning the current curriculum is not the solution. The only class Pro ever mentioned cutting was calculus. Calculus is not right for everyone, which is why it is almost always an optional class not required for graduation. However, for those capable of doing the work to learn calculus the class is extremely valuable in many areas of life. Much of the "real life" application Pro desired could not be taught in a classroom. Calculus can be taught in a classroom. However, the fact that reality is not like TV is something students either understand going in or it is something they have to learn for themselves. A teacher explaining it to them will not be effective. Also, the goal of school is not to teach students everything. The goal of school is to teach students the basics and give the tools needed to go on and learn more about any specialty they might be interested it. While increased funding and a wider variety of electives would be useful, that should not come at the expense of quality classes that already exist in school.
Schools should be teaching about real-life related things more, and remove a lot of their subjects

To finish this off, I am going to be quick and simple for the sake of time. There was a poll on this website actually, and the poll was titled "Does School Really prepare Students for Adult Life." Eighty percent said no with the majority having valid points. However, the Yes side did have valid points too, but some of them actually listed things school taught you that did not apply in real life on the yes side. Last thing before I end this. The education system of the United States of America is flawed really bad, and needs a major overhaul. Changing the whole curriculum seems like a good way to change it, and make it work. For those of you that want to comment; be professional.
Schools should be teaching about real-life related things more, and remove a lot of their subjects

Moving from "cut these classes" to "make them optional," is a big change to this debate. Yes, calculus (still the only class Pro has suggested cutting) should be optional. It is optional in nearly every high school curriculum. Only students taking a more challenging academic path take calculus. So I am good with calculus being optional, but not " as has been are debate thus far " with cutting calculus entirely. Some of the other classes Pro mentioned could be useful and are already optional classes in schools that can afford them. This is not new. I took a high school class in computer programing, and that was longer ago than I am willing to admit. Money management is also taught in most high schools, either in "home economics" or "life skills" or some class of that nature. If someone wants a career in computer programing, there is no way high school can prepare a person adequately. Higher education, such as an associate"s degree in programing, would be needed. The goal of high school is to teach a student how to think and learn. As I pointed out above, calculus is an excellent tool for that. Then students go on to college were they learn the specific skills for their chosen profession. Similarly, there is no way high school could adequately prepare someone in self-defense. If a student desired to learn self-defense on their own that is all well and good, but it would require more than one high school class to become proficient to the point of actually defending themselves. However, the existing classes in high school, such as physical education, can give students the ability to learn more advanced physical activities like self-defense. Of course some of the things Pro mentioned still can"t be taught in class. Time management is useful, but on an intellectual level it is not difficult. Most people can easily understand that they need to get their work done before they do other things. Putting that skill into practice is more difficult. Making friends, while a useful skill, is not something that can be taught in a classroom setting. Pro has mentioned some useful life skills. However, the goal of school is to give students the tools to be able to learn a wide variety of other skills. School cannot teach everything. School is a place to start; the student must then choose to use the skill learned in school to continue learning throughout life.
Abortion cannot be justified logically.

My original intention was to find NARAL's official justification of abortion. Strangely enough, their website does not contain one. The only one I found was "a woman's right to choose". Therefore, I will focus on this idea of a woman's right to choose as justification for abortion, along with any other justifications that I can recall having heard. I think we would all agree that we have the right to choose. However, does that right to choose translate over into a right to do whatever one wants, despite the moral or legal implications? If we used this rationale, then I would be morally justified in killing someone, if I so choose. Of course this is absurd. However, I realize that a pro-infanticide individual would quibble about the definition of person (entailing human rights), and whether or not a "fetus," as they prefer to call it, is one. For this, we need an additional logical argument. I will conduct this argument through questioning. First, I would ask if a baby, the moment after it is out of the womb, is a person. Save for the severely deluded, I think all of us would agree that it is. Second, I would ask if anything magical occurs during birth that magically makes the baby a person? Of course, there is no such magical transformation. Therefore, if a baby is a person after it has left the womb, it was a person before it left the womb. Third, I would ask if at any point during the pregnancy, a sudden observable transformation occurs that makes the fetus a person versus a non-person. The answer, of course, is no. If a baby is a person after leaving the womb, and that there is no defining point during its development in which it goes from being a non person to being a person, we must assume that it was always a person throughout its development, beginning at conception, when it became a geneticly human entity. Thus, abortion at any time during the pregnancy is murder. Since an unborn baby is at all times a person, abortion is also unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the right to life, as EXPRESSLY stated in the constitution. In contrast, a woman's right to choose must be CONSTRUED as constitutional through convoluted interpretations of due process as meaning "a right to privacy". It would take a twisted mind indeed to arrive at that conclusion. Nobody is infringing a woman's right to choose. If they don't want to have babies, then they can choose not to, BY NOT HAVING SEX.
mario is mental

mario is mental because in one mario game when luigi wins and mario loses mario stomps on luigis foot on purpose and crushes his foot and he is also abusive to animals at the end i will put a video that you can watch there are two parts to it but you will understand at the end so back on topic mario was donkey kong's master mario made him balance on a barrel and he had to catch all the pineapples and if he didn't catch it his hand would set on fire and when the yoshis save mario when he is an adult mario to make the yoshi extend its tounge he punchs the yoshi and he has three girlfriend daisy plaune i think that is how you spell it and peach i hope i help