BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Power

IntroSmooosh applied to debate me on this topic and on these sides through my "You Choose the Topic" debate challenge. I am looking forward to an excellent round!In order to ensure quality judging, I have nominated the following judges: Tej, Hayd, Whiteflame, Warren, Max, and Danielle. Those judges, by accepting this debate, agree to set aside their personal views on the topic and to adjudicate the round as impartially as they can; they also agree to refrain from discussing their vote or the outcome of the debate with any third party or the debaters themselves before casting their ballot. If Smooosh would like to have this list altered in any way, he should inform me before the start of the debate. The voting period lasts 14 days.TopicCountries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.TermsCountries - areas of land controlled by a sovereign governmentOught - implies moral desirabilityProhibit - to forbid (ban)Production - the creation of utility, specifically, the making of goods available for useNuclear Power - electric or motive power generated by a nuclear reactorRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate (unless otherwise specified in R1)9. The BOP is evenly shared10. Pro must post their arguments in R1 and waive in R511. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WiavesThanks......to Smooosh for this debate. I'm looking forward to a fun dialogue!
Debating seminar.

Since you did not provide any restrictions/rules I am able to provide/debate any title as i wish. Below is the topic: Ford 2010 Ford Mustang GT does not exist therefore it was never sold to the public. Since I am taking the side of the CON, I will be debating that 2010 Ford Mustang GT does exist and it is and was sold to the public. The PRO has the responsibility of providing evidences/arguments that the above specified car does not exist/was never made/sold. Good luck.
The Premise of Duality is flawed

Definition(s):We define cold and darkness as the opposite of heat and light. Dualism (from the Latin word duo meaning "two")[1] denotes a state of two parts. The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been diluted in other usages to indicate a system which contains two essential parts. Contention(s):Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present. Source(s): [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Eminem is the best rapper to ever live

Before I go into my position, I wanna take a moment to thank whoever my opponent may be. Marshall Bruce Mathers III was born to Deborah Mathers and Marshall Mathers II on October 17, 1973. At age 9, he heard his first rap song. At 14, he started rapping himself. In 1996, he released Infinite, which bombed, and he received a lot of flack for rapping as a white guy. In 1997, he released The Slim Shady EP (not the LP, the EP), which he introduced the famed Slim Shady. Dr. Dre noticed him, and together, they released The Slim Shady LP. This turned Eminem from an underground act to a celebrity overnight. Fast forward 14 years, several albums, 2 divorces, and 13 Grammys, Eminem is considered by many to be the greatest rapper in the game, me included. If you disagree, let me know. HoneyBadger
Hulk vs Superman

But tell me why? Why would he fight Hulk if Hulk isn't the enemy? Take this into consideration. Did you think about that? Hulk isn't an enemy; he saves lives too, you know. See, I thought about this, and since it's the last round, you can't do anything else but wait in see what I'm going to say. 'Nuff said. So. WOULD Superman actually win? I don't think so. Hulk can lift 100 tons when calm. He could easily pick up Superman and chuck him somewhere. Like into a pile of kryptonite, then attack. Yeah. And again. 'Nuff said. But I'm going to say more :) Have you seen the TV shows called "Smallville"? Superman almost dies in those! A bunch of times, even. Ha. Ha. I proved my point. :) Hulk. Would. Win. Thank you for having this debate; it was fun for a first :) ~I-love-to-write <3
Hulk vs Superman

Since you randomly picked Superman, I guess I get Hulk. To start off, he is very strong and can heal (it depends on his emotional state) very fast. Plus, the more angry he is, the stronger he is. And, his weakness is not kryptonite. He could use kryptonite against Superman. So ha! Superman is supposed so save lives, right? So it would be against his "tradition", I guess you could put it. In conclusion, I don't think that Superman would be able to do ANYTHING, am I right? You choose your side!
was 1950s america a sexy time for women

This is not a troll debate, i strongly stand by this and nobody has outargued me on this. I think that 1950s america was a sexy time to be a woman,gay,lesbian,non binary because women would be more obedient and less of hassle gays would have had a good time having illegal sex which would turn them on more,the same goes for lesbians. Family life would be more stable with women looking after the kids/cooking and the man doing the boring important stuff, then the man would come back from work the women will take off his shoes,cook him a meal, try to be delightful and all.If done correctly the women would be greeted with an awesome round of sex
Hamburgers are better than Hot Dogs Hamburgers: PRO Hot Dogs: CON

Rebuttals: "Hamburgers are more natural and you actually know what's in a burger...where as the ingredients of a hot dog is up for grabs." If you have ever eaten a 100% all beef hot dog from Costco or anywhere else, (Costco was the first place that came to my mind.) then you can guess what ingredients are inside of it. They are also very natural, because it is made of 100% beef. "You know that most people prefer hamburgers and they are healthier which is really good." The first part is a matter of your opinion. The second part is true in two different ways. Hot dogs are high in sodium, hamburgers are high in calories. It is actually up to the consumer which they assume in more important. "Hamburgers are much easier to perform at home." Most people are just as accessible to hot dogs and hot dog buns as they are to hamburgers and hamburger buns. They can both be prepared on a grill, as well. I am now done. Good luck!
Hamburgers are better than Hot Dogs Hamburgers: PRO Hot Dogs: CON

"Any person on this planet will tell you that an all beef hot dog is much better for you in calories than a hamburger." But how many chose all beef hot dogs. Most chose toppings in fact I am sure that everybody I know favorite thing about a hot dog is the toppings. And also you can try a all beef hamburger to and it will be the same as a all beef hot dog? "A hot dog can have many variations, some bad, some good. By choosing the correct hot dog for you, it is possible to cut almost half of the calories from your standard burger dinner." You can also chose the healthier topics on hamburgers. And what are some really good topics for hot dogs that you can't put on hamburgers, Not much I can't counter more of your arguments because you did not write a lot. :P
Hamburgers are better than Hot Dogs Hamburgers: PRO Hot Dogs: CON

Any person on this planet will tell you that an all beef hot dog is much better for you in calories than a hamburger. A hot dog can have many variations, some bad, some good. By choosing the correct hot dog for you, it is possible to cut almost half of the calories from your standard burger dinner. Here are what other people say about hot dogs: With a well-chosen hot dog, whole-wheat bun and fresh toppings, you can make the best of the worst.(http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) Hot dogs and hot dog buns are typically smaller than burgers and their diminutive size gives them a calorie advantage. An all-beef hot dog and white-bread bun will cost you a mere 270 calories. As a dinner entree, that"s a pretty moderate amount. (http://www.eatingwell.com...) Websites used: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.eatingwell.com... Time for Rebuttals!
Hamburgers are better than Hot Dogs Hamburgers: PRO Hot Dogs: CON

Hot dogs are made with a lot of sodium and preservatives. Hamburgers have more of a choice of items that you can put on them. Hamburgers are much easier to preform at home. So, when it comes to less fat for dollars, hamburgers dominate round 1. Hamburgers lose a lot of fat when on the grill. In the battle of more ways to enjoy less fat, hamburgers definitely reign victorious. Contains a healthy dose of vitamin B. Hamburgers are more natural and you actually know what's in a burger...where as the ingredients of a hot dog is up for grabs. You know that most people prefer hamburgers and they are healthier which is really good. Websites used- http://www.bistromd.com... http://caloriecount.about.com...
there should be no horse track racing

whipping in racing hurts the horse, but this is untrue. The horse has a very thick hide covered with coarse hair. The whip is basically used to just communicate with the horse. According to the Guardian, reporter Greg Wood volunteered to be hit with a whip as hard as a jockey would hit a horse and here is what he had to say. " He hit me three times in quick succession on the palm of the hand yesterday afternoon, the third time "as hard as I'd ever hit a horse" and, thanks to the design of his lightweight, foam-cushioned whip, I scarcely felt a thing. It has not always been like this. A decade or so ago a fairly gentle swish from a heavy, old-fashioned whip with a loop of leather at its tip would have produced a smack with a real sting. The modern equivalent, though, is all about noise rather than impact. "A horse wouldn't feel it the same as a human," Crowley said. "They have a tough hide and it's covered with hair. This whip doesn't hurt a human, so it can't hurt a horse and these sticks have been tested and tested to show that they don't hurt the horse. "There's no way a jockey would want to hurt a horse. The sticks nowadays are fantastic and designed to startle the horse with a loud bang. We use them to create that sound, which is what people don't realise, and that's the problem. " . http://www.theguardian.com... My opponent contends that the Horse racing industry brings In very little money, but the evidence would suggest otherwise. It creates almost half a million jobs. It's direct effect on the economy is close to 40 billion dollars and it brings in 2 billion dollars in taxes. . http://www.horsecouncil.org... This is just in America. I have directly destroyed every premise of my opponent's and showed how horse racing is good for the economy.
Darth Vader would beat Luke Skywalker in a battle

let's begin Argument #1: Shatterpoint Shatterpoint allows a force-wielder to expose all weaknesses requiring a great amount of focus. This is very useful for two reasons. First of all Darth Vader has many more weaknesses then Luke Skywalker. Why? Look at Darth Vader. He is missing 3 limbs and a hand. his fragile life depends on a life support system. These and other weaknesses can and would be exploited to Luke's advantage, eventually resulting in Vader losing. The other reason is because Darth Vader and his son are so similar to each other. Two of their similarities is their fighting styles and adaptability. Both men mainly use form V of lightsaber combat,. Djem So and Shien. The style is meant for Jedi and Sith with bulky builds. The style allows for long duels with defensive stances in the beginning and middle but violent, offensive ends. Both know the strengths and weaknesses of the form but Luke can exploit these gaps much more easily because of shatterpoint. The second advantage is their adaptability. Both showed great power at young ages. Both could fly almost anything. Both progressed through the Jedi ranks faster then almost every other Jedi. Both adapted to using a tad of the dark side into their combat styles (though one went haywire and switched sides) Both know their limits to adapt and Luke would be able to put Vader in a bad situation resulting in him losing. Argument #2: Speed Darth Vader is pretty heavy, like 300 lbs heavy. He is missing his legs and cannot use the element of surprise because of his constant breathing and loud but slow footsteps. His preferred style is Djem So which is naturally a slow form. Luke has no prosthetic limbs (1 fake hand) and an element of surprise. He also prefers to use Djem So, but this is countered by his mastery of all forms. Luke's speed allows him to counter most attacks plus he has a much more natural speed the Darth Vader. Darth has to use the force to generate speed, while Luke does not. The weight and speed is a weakness that can be exploited by shatterpoint Argument #3: Experience Luke became the founder of the new Jedi order and a Grand Jedi master, he was trained by two of the most powerful Jedi there are and in his first duel with his father he injured Darth Vader. Luke also did much more, but I won't get into detail. My whole point is Luke did more has more to his belt. Both in the force and in the battleground is Luke experienced. At one point he would have surpassed Darth Vader in skill, arguably in ROTJ did Luke come ahead. Vader himself is experienced, but at one point all he did was kill Jedi and command the fleet. He did little training after his lava incident and was never same again. This is why Luke is better. I await your response. Thanks
Darth Vader would beat Luke Skywalker in a battle

Welcome back everyone. I'm here to rematch KJCharmed03 in this debate. The resolution is that Darth Vader would beat Like Skywalker in a fight in their prime stae (And no. Darth Vader as Anakin Skywalker does NOT count as Darth Vader.) In this fight all skills can be brought up to support our positions. I am taking the negative side of this debate as I believe Luke Skywalker would beat his Father in a duel. To clarify the rules and times and limits, here they are: -9000 Characters -48 Hours to post you argument -1st round for acceptance -2nd round for arguments -3rd for rebuttal and crediting resources used. I await your reply Good bye and good luck.
If Kim Jong Un attacks should we retaliate

Since you acknowledge my point about China's and Russia's lack of involvement then you have rendere your whole argument. The definition of world war: NOUN a war involving many large nations in all different parts of the world. https://www.merriam-webster.com... Using this definition then the war between the USA and North Korea can't be considered a World War. In the Iran and Iraq war saw the USA fighting Iran and Iraq. We did not see nuclear weapons flying anywhere or any of the conflict really spilling out anywhere. Russia did not get involved and China did not get involved. We would merely see a repeat of the wars in the Middle East. When Israel was attacked by the Arab nations, they retaliated and destroyed their enemies. We did not see WWIII break out. North Korea simply doesn't have allies that are willing to fight a nuclear war with the USA so it cant go global.
If Kim Jong Un attacks should we retaliate

I do agree that we should defend ourselves at all costs but whether is cause world war 3 or not retaliating would creat a war and trump and his temperament isn't going To take it easy, and there is no way Kim Jong Un is going to international court he has his own little world over there. You do have a point that although China is N. Koreas biggest ally but would most likely side with the US or avoid it entirely. Kim Jong Un has power in his country in such a way that he doesn't really understand boundaries or consequences. If we were to attack, that would not only put the American people in danger of a nuclear attack it would shock the world and North Korea would be a bigger threat to all. If N. Korea attacks we should take the missile (assuming that is what they might use) out of the air and verbally defuse the situation, and even then I don't think Kim Jong Un would listen or care very much what we have to say, and we don't know if they are looking for a fight or if they are telling us to go away. This is a truly important subject thank you for joining. Good luck in the next round
If Kim Jong Un attacks should we retaliate

The US military exists to protect the American people. To not retaliate in the fear of a war is completely stupid and impossible. Sometimes war is inevitable, using this logic America should have just sat back did nothing after Pear Harbor. Even then it would not lead to WWIII for many reasons. There is no incentive for Russia or China to get involved. If, N. Korea strikes first and the USA is completely justified in international law. The Soviet Union never fought a war against the USA because of the possibility of MAD. If this conflict does not directly involve Russia or China then they won't join in. No one wants WWIII. The Chinese and Russian economy is practically dependent on the USA and our allies. Why would they risk the chance of completely destroying their economies and risk the chance of a MAD?
Ps3 is Better than Xbox

As pro has forfeited their round I shall explain why the Xbox is better: Xbox is cheaper than PS3; PSN security is very bad; Xbox Live is more reliable and ther is less latancy; downloadable content is often released earlier on Xbox than on the Playstation Network; Xbox Live has more players online with more microphones; Xbox graphics are better; Xbox has better exclusive titles; the Kinect is revolutionary in gaming; the PSMove is a very late version of the Nintendo Wii; Xbox 360 contollers are more comfortable and designed to make hand movement easier; Xbox has more features; Xbox Live is faster than PSN; Xboxs have larger hard drives.
Goto College or follow your dreams( when your family deems you a failure and closeminded.)

I say that you must follow your dreams. Your parents as parents should not prioritize the career they picked out for you over your happiness. If they are, then they should have a good reason to and it has to be discussed for the child to understand. If they don't, then maybe they just want the money you'll get out of an expensive career. I mean, would you want to work a job that you never wanted to have in the first place every day of your working life?
Goto College or follow your dreams( when your family deems you a failure and closeminded.)

Life is short, and you want to follow your dreams. your family especially your parents want you to go and get your degree. you choose to follow your dreams, even if your parents called you close minded, a failure, a disgrace to your own family, they even go to the point of using race as a way to justify their-selves. Is it still worth following your dream? Remember, life is too short, and to become an obedient drone for society is just wasting life. Its your will or your family's will.
To be decided

Okay here it goes: You can debate me on anything you see we disagree on, juging by anything you can see on my profile page: http://www.debate.org... it can even be from previous debates, such as the inuyasha debate, it doesn't matter, just choose 3-7 possible topics for us to debate, and I will rechallange you to a debate with that topic. Anybody else up for that, can post it in the comments, and I'll take them up...I am just bored and ready for some good debates...
The government should raise the age for driving a car.

Teens account for 12% of all accidents. Car Accidents by Age in The United States 2006 Age of Driver Number Killed in Car Crashes 2006 Under 5 Years Old 578 5 - 9 516 10 - 15 1,079 16 - 20 5,658 21 - 24 4,701 25 - 34 7,169 35 - 44 6,361 45 - 54 6,232 55 - 64 4,178 65 - 74 2,611 Over Age 74 3,406 Unknown 153 Total Killed 42,642 17 Year Old Driver Crash California Car Crash State Gallery Car Accident Causes World Wide Crash Guide As you currently see a majority of the accidents are people 25-34 and a majority of those people would be really ticked if they have their driving rights taken away. http://www.car-accidents.com...
This House Supports the Brexit

Ok, let's agree with the opposition. Let's say that the costs incurred when Britain has to trade with each country separately is higher than the membership fee of being in EU. First of all, economic experts themselves cannot agree whether which scenario is going to incur more cost, especially when you consider that even if Britain does leave the EU it is going to take at least 2 years to gradually leave the EU and to finalise new laws and trade agreements. But when the problem is happening now, we cannot continue to ignore it without trying something new. Britain has been in the EU for too long and a new way of doing things, a change from the old ways deserve at least a 'trial period' to enable us to work things out. My opponent then argues terrorist ideas are home grown, not brought in and therefore an emphasis should be on the education system. I simply cannot agree with this. The fact that most terrorists have radical Islamic views are because they are from Islamic descent. To mitigate this problem, you can't bring in more people from Islamic countries (assuming this is Syria, Iraq etc) and expect that you know, nothing is going to happen and we're all going to live happy in a multicultural society. Which is exactly why, at this period in history with influx of migrants from Muslim countries, and Turkey trying to push their way to visa-free travel, we need to have more control over our borders. It is our concern that Brussels will force us to terms that will impact our community, particularly with regards to the public's sensitivity about muslims and terrorism. The fact that member states can share info to me is not at all a good reason to remain in the EU. The war on terrorism is a war fought collectively by all countries whether or not we remain in EU. America, Canada, Australia all non-EU countries contribute to our info on potential terrorist threats. And when we still cannot prevent incidents like that in Sydney and Paris, we should not pretend that just by sharing info we can solve terrorism altogether. Notice that I am not at all saying that all Muslims are terrorists. I am saying that we have to take the necessary precautionary steps with the knowledge that most terrorists are muslims. Britain leaving the EU does not mean we will leave our collective effort with other countries on the war on terrorism. I have certainly enjoyed this debate and I thank my opponent for his worthy assessments and for his time. Vote Government. Vote for Independence.