BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My opponent is a zombie (not serious)

I am here to say that my opponent (and possibly the entire human race, excluding me) is a philosophical zombie. For a view of these terrifying creations see below. http://www.youtube.com... Now what is a zombie you may ask. Zombies are all around us as well as mutants (to be explained later). They are mindless drones who walk around with no soul and consciousness beyond an evil spell or possibly a computer program. However due to laws made by politicians, who are of course zombies, I can't run headfirst into battle with two chainsaws duck taped to a kayak paddle freeing the game grid of programs and instead letting users rule. I expect either a great zombie philosopher (such as FREEDO) or a great zombie humorist (such as koopin.) Beware or I might do this to you. http://www.youtube.com...
are mini skirts appropriate for the office

I accept the terms of this debate, and will argue on the stance that mini-skirts are not appropriate in an office setting. I would first like to start by defining 'appropriate': adjective əG2;pr!3;prē-it/ 1. suitable or proper in the circumstances. With that being said, I am assuming that when you say 'in the office' we are referring to a business setting. In that case, the reason that there is usually a formal business dress code in the first place is to keep a professional image for the business, as well as increase productivity via reduction of non-business distractions. Regular skirts that go down to at least the knee area can be seen as formal business attire, as long as they're not flashy or provocative, and there are many industries that commonly use them as part of their dress code (flight attendants, waitresses, etc.). On the other side we have mini-skirts, which are not commonly seen as formal business wear, but rather as a casual attire, and are usually viewed as being provocative. It is due to this that they are not appropriate in a business setting. I will also point out that my personal view of the topic is that they don't provide any distraction from work for me. However, in a business setting you almost always have a diverse range of people, and thus the dress code must be set so that it will cater to everyone and not adjust itself to persons on an individual basis. There is also the viewpoint that allowing non-businesslike attire into a workplace, on top of providing a bad image for the business, can lead to increased cases of sexual harassment. This can lead to bad relationships between employees and lowered morale in the workplace. In the end, it boils down to a matter of being appropriate vs. being acceptable. There are definitely places where less strict clothing regulations are perfectly acceptable, usually in smaller more casual settings, but in a general office/business setting the dress code needs to be a formal for the aforementioned reasons.
Foreign aid should be increased

But the reason we have been sending less abroad is because we need more money at home to deal with domestic problems. It is not our responsibility to hold up countries in the world which are effectively "black holes", which just suck up foreign aid and none of it ends up going to the people, but instead funds governments which often neglect their people. Here is an article which highlights how damaging foreign aid can really be when not spent right: http://www.wsj.com.... This article states that over 50% of Africans live in poverty, however this article received widespread criticism for actually understating the levels of poverty in Africa. One critic from VOX said that the figure was actually closer to 70%. Shovelling more money onto the fire doesn't help anything except appeasing people who think we should be sending aid abroad. Instead we should make sure the current money we are sending off goes to better causes, and is used to directly fund projects as opposed to giving cheques to governments and letting them spend it how they wish. The answer is not to just throw more money at the problem, it's a more complex issue than that. A government's responsibility is not to help people abroad, but instead to help people at home and listen to their wishes. In a Politico poll in 2013, 40% of Americans, when given 19 options, wanted to actually reduce the amount of foreign aid sent abroad, because they do not feel it is actually spent right. If we actually want to make a difference with our foreign aid, we need to seriously review how that money is spent, where it goes, and what effects it really has before we choose to just spend more.
Foreign aid should be increased

The number of the very poor in Africa has actually more than halved since 1990 according to people like Bill Gates. Foreign aid does not have to cause inflation. It depends on how the money is spent. I would say we already know enough about how to make aid work better given that we have been giving it out for decades and there have been many recommendations on how to improve it. I would also say that we can't delay increasing it because it has been underfunded and frequently cut by governments for decades and so we got a lot of catch-up to do so we can better address issues like poverty and health. http://www.one.org...
Foreign aid should be increased

I understand your argument, and I agree with you. I'm not saying foreign aid is always a bad thing, and I'm not saying all of it goes to waste. However I do not think that the amount of foreign aid should increase before we start dealing with the issue of where that aid is going. At the moment, a certain percentage of the aid countries such as the USA and UK send abroad is wasted because of the reasons I stated in Round 1. Therefore we shouldn't just mindlessly increase the aid we send abroad, but instead we should review the current amount we send and work out where it's going to waste. We should make the aid we send more efficient before we decide to increase it. To counter your point about the average wage in Africa going up: this is not because your average African has become richer. Your figures are in fact misleading, because what has actually happened is the poorest half of Africans have become poorer, but the richest Africans have become richer at a higher rate than the other Africans getting poorer. This means that it would appear on paper that people in Africa are all earning more, when in fact this is not the case. How else would African poverty levels be higher now than they used to be? The inflation which large injections of capital to poor countries cause can be fatal for a country, and especially the poorest people in that country, who can no longer even afford a loaf of bread. And while African economies are rapidly growing, at the moment this isn't helping that 50% of the population living on under $1/day, but is instead making a few people very rich. And you say $500m isn't a lot, but for a country like Ghana, one of the richest countries in Africa, that will equate to just over 10% of the current GDP, which is far higher than it used to be. That much money just turning up in Ghana could lead to major inflation, but this is only Ghana, with a GDP far above most other African countries ($48bn/capita). To conclude, I agree with you that foreign aid can and does work in certain cases, but before we start spending more on helping nations abroad, we should make the current money we send go further, and rethink the way in which we give foreign aid.
Foreign aid should be increased

Hello, Thanks for taking the debate. There is of course a lot that has to be done within America but I would argue that one can do both. Many of the countries that give the most in foreign aid {as a percentage} are also ones that provide a very high standard of living and low poverty to their own people. They have managed to do both. It also needs to be noted the USA gives less than 1% of its budget to foreign aid. This still leaves trillions of dollars to help Americans. No doubt foreign aid has not always gone to where it is needed the most and some of it has been stolen. This does not mean that none of it has made it or worked and there should be no increase in foreign aid. There are examples of the good foreign aid can do. There are also mechanisms in place to reduce money being stolen. It can go to not for profits instead of national governments for example. Many countries that have received foreign aid have not been held down because of it. Brazil and Singapore are just some of the countries that have done well economically even though they received a lot of aid. Africa has not done as badly as is often portrayed. "Income per person in Africa has climbed by two-thirds since 1998"from just over $1,300 then to nearly $2,200 today. Seven of the 10 fastest-growing economies of the past half-decade are in Africa" The more than 1 trillion dollars over decades is not that much when one considers that per year that works out to be only about 20 billion a year and that is shared amongst more than 40 countries in Africa. Working out at around 500 million a year per country and that is only if it was equally allocated which it was not. http://www.wsj.com... http://www.theguardian.com...
They should make another V-For Vendetta Movie...

Closing statement: The making of a second "V for Vendetta" film is entirely unnecessary. It will be completely horrible without any of the characters from the previous film or any relevance to the original plot. Attempting to make a sequel to such a film would demonstrate one more time that Hollywood has no creative ability. Any half-decent screenwriter can easily develop a script for a film that emphasizes many of the same themes that "V for Vendetta" looks at, but with original characters, plots, and settings. In sum, I have demonstrated why they should not make another "V for Vendetta" film. My opponent, however, has produced nothing but senseless opinions.
They should make another V-For Vendetta Movie...

I miss Evy Ha-ha!!! I want more of her...hey ya Evy = ee v (which contains V and sounds like V) holy crap I think I'm on to something!!! Evy will continue the V-For Vendetta story...yup I'm sure of it. End of debate I win!!! Um ya that's my last and final effort for standing by my initial statement for whatever its worth...Let the best man win(me lol). Remember remember the fifth of November Gunpowder, treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder, treason Should ever be forgot...
They should make another V-For Vendetta Movie...

"You expect me to believe that you (nor anybody else for that matter) would like to see another V-For Vendetta Movie?" If a sequel would ruin the story, then obviously no one would like to see another "V for Vendetta" film made. I mean that quite literally: no one would see it. "why can't they create a story of a follower of V's that also lives his life for an idea and serving justice along the way." If that's the case, I don't see (1) how such a film would be related enough to "V for Vendetta" that it would warrant being called a "second" film in the franchise (considering the "V" in "V for Vendetta" no longer exists, or (2) why the character of V would be necessary at all, considering that plot element could be established very easily in any decently-written film. No film should presuppose an audience has seen another film, and that applies in this case. "Just the heroic aspect of the initial movie is what I believe made it so great, so they could easily create another movie similar to that regardless of who the characters are..." I doubt this claim. The thing is this: great stories with "heroic aspects" have been written throughout humankind's history without the characters from "V for Vendetta". A great film does not need to leech characters from another one in order to be appreciated for what it is worth. If a filmmaker tries to make a sequel to the film, using different characters from the original film, the result will seem contrived and arbitrary. It would be a sore disappointment to the many fans of "V for Vendetta", and only work to lessen the appreciation that many have for the original film's great themes. This has been seen repeatedly when Hollywood studios follow blockbuster, well-made films with direct-to-DVD sequels that no one sees or much less likes. "Which does not necessarily have to continue V's story but just a story similar of someone who does the same as V did." As I said, a good screenwriter can easily make a film of equal or greater quality than "V for Vendetta" with all of the great themes and symbols of that film without the use of these characters. There is no need to make explicit mention of V as a predecessor of a protagonist in a great film with "heroic aspects" and a theme of freedom from tyranny.
They should make another V-For Vendetta Movie...

My only responce is this...You expect me to believe that you (nor anybody else for that matter) would like to see another V-For Vendetter Movie? I agree with you that it would only further ruin the story if they were to continue with the same or relative characters like the girl or a child of V's. But how about this...why can't they create a story of a follower of V's that also lives his life for an idea and serving justice along the way. Just the heroic aspect of the initial movie is what I believe made it so great, so they could easily create another movie similar to that regardless of who the characters are just as long as the main tie to the initial movie remains in tact as the main character that somehow generates from influence of V is how the story will be told. Which does not necessarily have to continue V's story but just a story similar of someone who does the same as V did. I think that would be an acceptable sequel. This is my deffence to the responce my opponent made. Waiting for the next round...
Label GMO foods in the US.

Without him, this debate never would have happened and many wouldn't have informed of the issue at hand. With that out of the way, I'd like to open this final focus by zooming in on a couple of main voter issues and I'd like to state why I believe the con has won both of them. This debate has essentially boiled down to two main things: the right to know and the actual safety of GMOs. The right to know the contents of your food has been a constant throughout this entire debate. However, I believe the con has clearly won this issue, as the con has effectively provided a pragmatic solution to the problem at hand: let capitalism solve the problem. Seeing as GMOs don't pose an immediate proven threat to the public, the government needn't step in and harm this developing science that promises to help the environment, feed millions, and get not only the United States' economy but also the international economy the stimulation it desperately needs. The solution the con has provided, as hinted by Ron Paul in the con's Round 1 argument and outlined in the con's Round 2 argument, is to allow companies the choice to label or not to label, instead of forcing them to follow the pro's toxic policy. People who fear GMOs could simply opt out of buying products not labeled strictly "GMO free" and tested and proven as such, and those who don't could go on with their lives as they have before. The public's minor concern about the safety of GMOs is, for the most part, misguided and driven by misinformation. This goes for both personal safety and environmental safety: personal safety has been proven time and time again, as pointed out by the con's Round 2 quote, "A report in Food and Chemical Toxicology reviewed 24 long-term/multigenerational studies which all concluded that 'genetically modified corn, soy, potato, rice and wheat had no ill effects on the rats, cows, mice, quails, chickens, pigs and sheep that ate them. Growth, development, blood, tissue structure, urine chemistry and organ and body weights were normal. '" Environmentally, GMOs have limited impact as well. While Monsanto's actions have been questionable, this was not the fault of the item itself (GMOs) but instead of the user, Monsanto. Monsanto abused GMOs and pushed policies with the intent of maximizing profit. If the government wishes to solve this, it's better to tackle the problem at the source: dangerous farming techniques. This is the only serious, proven problem the pro has provided and labeling GMOs will not solve this. The reality of the matter is that when looking through the entire debate, the only side with a pragmatic, target oriented solution to the resolution is the CON, and I urge a strong vote in that position.
Islam is a barbaric religion.

Barbaric- savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal. https://www.google.com... You say that the religion is violent, yet the people who follow it are not violent? 1.) The video you sent me is a Shaykh from Saudi Arabia I believe. In Saudi Arabia, they still have beheading for apostasy and have implemented, "Sharia Law." Saudi Arabia practices a extreme form of belief called Wahhabism https://en.wikipedia.org... I agree with you, that these guys are absolutely crazy and out of their minds. Though I don't understand, is why you label the the actual religion as violent, instead of the actual people. I would not say rape, because this did take place over 1000 years ago. Standards are a lot different in in the Middle East over 1000 years ago. You can't compare the two. Can you provide evidence that Sharia Law is actually a thing? I know it is implemented in many countries, but that does not support the fact that the religion itself is violent. Sharia was created by people, it's not even in the Quran. I want you to tell me where it comes from, if you say it comes out of religion. Why is the entire religion generalized because some people, choose to live in a way that is completely different from western society?
Islam is a barbaric religion.

I didn't contradict my statement. I simply distanced a group of people within Muslim community from my criticism, key word in my statement was 'every'. I have to note that you are right, I quoted Hadith. Since you mentioned rape and pedophilia, I have to ask, is it barbaric enough to sanction rape of innocent children? The above link is just to state the fact that Prophet Muhammad had sex (raped) with a 9 year old girl, a tradition which is still carried under Islamic countries. Question is what makes Islam a barbaric religion? Islamic preaching have blatant disregard toward human right, security or peace itself.Sharia is a prime example for Islamic violence.Derived from Quran and Hadith,Sharia is considered in Islam as infallible law of God. Public executions , stoning to death are common practices under Islamic law. Since you are defending Islam not being barbaric I would love to hear your thoughts on Sharia, how it originated? what does it stand for?
The United States should develop a missile defense system.

So you're sAying we should hAve 2 missile defense systems? When we AlreAdy hAve A missile defense system in plAce then why would we put A missile defense system in. HAving Another missile defense system wouldn't help. So the detAils you filled in during your first round Are invAlid becAuse they Are detAils for A missile defense system thAt isn't necessAry becAuse we AlreAdy hAve one. In order to debAte something you must use evidence and sAying thAt we don't hAve to look At pAst or present systems would be illogicAl when trying to justify A new system. We AlreAdy hAve A system so why mAke A new one. So thAt is why con is the only possible side you could vote for. The Arguments my opponent Are extending Are thus invAlid. PleAse extend All of my Round 1 Arguments in All 3 lAnguAges. ThAnk you.
The United States should develop a missile defense system.

Well, I consider it rather unfortunate that my opponent refuses to have an actual debate on this important topic. This is the resolution that was given to us; and as such, we must debate it. However, since he has attacked the semantics of the resolution, I will defend that point. The resolution and opening arguments propose "a missile defense system". The "a" is the important part here. This word, as I said in my opening argument, leaves the proposed system up to the PRO to fill in with more detail, as I did. If the resolution said, "The United States should develop the missile defense system that it has now", then clearly my opponent's claim would be valid; but since it leaves the proposed system open to interpretation, we don't have to talk at all about what systems the U.S. currently has in place. My opponent's attack on the resolution is thus completely invalid. Please extend all of my Round 1 arguments. Thank you.
The United States should develop a missile defense system.

Voy a atacar el hecho de que no hay barrera inherrent en la resoluciï¿½n. La resoluciï¿½n indica que "los Estados Unidos DEBEN desarrollar una defensa del misil." Es conocimiento comï¿½n que los Estados Unidos tienen ya un sistema de defensa del misil, allï¿½ la resoluciï¿½n se pone en ejecucio'n ya en el status quo que toma con la decisiï¿½n posible para el juez. Es desafortunado que el creador de este torneo del discusiï¿½n hizo una resoluciï¿½n tan daï¿½ada para que discutamos, pero debo discutir bajo tï¿½rminos dados a mï¿½, y bajo esos tï¿½rminos los triunfos del con. Ich werde die Tatsache in Angriff nehmen, daï¿½ es keine inherrent Sperre in der Auflï¿½sung gibt. Die Auflï¿½sung gibt an, daï¿½ "die Vereinigten Staaten eine Flugverteidigung entwickeln SOLLTEN." Es ist allgemeines Wissen, daï¿½ die Vereinigten Staaten bereits einen Flugverteidigungssystem haben, dort die Auflï¿½sung wird eingefï¿½hrt bereits im Status Quo, der gegen die mï¿½gliche Entscheidung fï¿½r den Richter trifft. Es ist unglï¿½cklich, daï¿½ der Schï¿½pfer dieses Debatteturniers solch eine defekte Auflï¿½sung bildete, damit wir debattieren, aber ich debattieren muï¿½ unter den Bezeichnungen, die mir gegeben werden, und unter jenen Bezeichnungen die Betrï¿½gergewinne. I'm going to attack the fact that there is no inherrent barrier in the resolution. The resolution states that "The United States SHOULD develop a missile defense." It is common knowledge that the United States already has a missile defense system, there the resolution is already implemented in status quo making con the possible decision for the judge. It is unfortunate that the creator of this debate tournament made such a flawed resolution for us to debate, but I must debate under the terms given to me, and under those terms the con wins.
If US should get involved with Isis

I believe this side-argument is too side tracked that you should read the post for yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... In summarization, I have to say that my opponent has presented very little argument on why the U.S. should not go to war with ISIS. They have not addressed the fact that we know too little of the subject, nor have they responded to the issue that it will devastate us as a nation financially. The cons to this situation are truly much stronger than the pros. Our actions last a lifetime. In a situation this grave, we must wait and further assess this situation. Hastiness will not solve the problem. Simply sending ambassadors puts their lives in danger. Bombing the area is going to cause tensions for our country nationally and may risk killing innocent civilians of Syria. The effects to our involvement with ISIS are too unpredictable that we must wait for further information to come in. If other countries, who have even had their own citizens killed by ISIS, are not becoming directly involved, then that tells you something. ISIS is a threat, no doubt, but they are a dangerous, incalculable threat that must be handled carefully and the time to confront such a threat is not now. Considering the delicate state our nation is in on the global scale and in facing our own financial burdens of accumulating debt from becoming involved in situations like these we have had in the past, we must not become involved in order to secure the stability of our nation.