BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
LD is a superior form of debate to policy

ok idk how many policy rounds the aff has seen but he doesn't seem to realize how much effort is put into policy debate it takes time to come up with quality arguments not just what a philosopher said and how we should do this action such as nihlism. It takes no effort to say lets do nothing. Policy has lots of differnt things to think about from the negative side such as counter plans, Dis-ads, topicality, and the not so much liked critiques. Things that take time to have a well debated round. On his spreading argument there is spreading in LD also but that's ok because spreading isn't debates anti-christ; so that's not a very good argument the reason I didn't feel the need to answer it. On to his abuse argument i'm not saying he has no brain power i'm just saying he took the easy way out in choosing LD over Policy as I am sure you have seen throughout this debate. In conlusion the affirmative has no offense in this debate he has just claimed abuse in saying it was bad what I said I just called it as I see LD a relatively useless form of policy debate. I am sure that you have seen how much better policy is than LD so it should be easy to click the vote negative.
LD is a superior form of debate to policy

Well im sorry i was unable to post my argument this is my first debate online and is did not know how to post any way My opponent states that it is about unprovable philosophies made by dead ppl no one heard about and that this is apparently not important philosophers make up out current day society and policy is all about spreading cheap evidence all over the place which i can extend since my opponent dropped it so we can assume spreading is wrong "To correct the Pros argument about how policy is easier because you have more time to think. That's the worst argument I have ever heard policy is given more time because it is something people could actually utilize because policy is about current issues while as LD has short little speeches just so they can leave quicker because there is no reason to do LD its not realistic" LD has to think on their feet more because we have less time which is why our speeches are in fact only 3 minutes shorter but we have 4 minutes less prep time So you must vote negative because the Affirmative just tells you how easy LD is and it is easy because it takes no effort to rattle all of the philosophers you know off where as policy takes real time, effort, and brain power." i call abuse on this argument to the judge he is insulting my brain power and all other LD debaters brain power. however I will still refute this i never stated LD was easier than Policy in fact i say its harder we have to use ethics and morals when policy only has to use evidence my opponent has clearly misquoted me and the philosiphers being "Rattled off" all you do in policy is ratlle off bits and pieces of useless cards that do nothing for you. and as for the whole Policy has been around longer than LD that doesnt mean its better washington and lincoln were great presidents but yet even though they were before and original we still had bush and clinton and obama so the time is e relevant and as for why LD changes you have time and you type your cases and they get intense and yeah we change because it gets boring but there are as many ways to interpret and apply the resolution as there are in policy but my friend AK (Alexander Kulacki) Who is a policy debater has stressed that there are plans that are used commonly as there are cases in LD so as you can see all of my opponents points dont stand while mine do not to include my extended spreading argument so i urge an affirmative vote this person has misquoted me and i urge an affirmative vote
LD is a superior form of debate to policy

Policy Debate has been around for longer than LD also so LD is just a stem off of a true form of debate. It takes more time for policy because you have to think in round you don't just have all of your case written up before hand. LD has to have topic changes so often because it gets to easy after a month of talking about the same thing. Policy stays the same because there is so many different ways a round can go and that always keep it way more intersting than LD.
LD is a superior form of debate to policy

LD is a ridiculous form of debate. It is all about unprovable philosophies made by dead people that no one really knows about. On the pros policy is just "winning off of sole evidence is wrong" argument that is how debate is supposed to be you need proof that your policy is the best in the round not just who can talk about philosophers and what they defended for no reason. To correct the Pros argument about how policy is easier because you have more time to think. That's the worst argument I have ever heard policy is given more time because it is something people could actually utilize because policy is about current issues while as LD has short little speeches just so they can leave quicker because there is no reason to do LD its not realistic. So you must vote negative because the Affirmative just tells you how easy LD is and it is easy because it takes no effort to rattle all of the philosophers you know off where as policy takes real time, effort, and brain power.
LD is a superior form of debate to policy

Well i stand in the strictest affirmation that LD is a better form of debate than policy. firstly in policy they spread which is cheap and well too gloaty you basically shove a bunch of stuff in your opponents face which leaves them nothing to respond because there's so much in their face. secondly the first aff and neg speeches are just policy debaters reading off evidence and spreading as i have stated before why spreading is wrong winning off of sole evidence is wrong. LD acknowledges this and realizes you must not only win off of sole facts you must also win based off of morality and ethics if we were to go off of facts alone that would be simply atrocious for example if were debating nuke war i could say hey nukes kill off all of the US's enemies and won off of that it would be different than me saying hey that's wrong morally because you kill thousands of lives evidence and facts can only get you so far before you realize what is easy and what is right i say that policy is what is easy. i would also like to state that policy provides rounds that are horrendously long policy takes an hour and a half where as LD takes half of the time Why would you supply twice the time unless you needed more time to think of rebuttals. policy is easier than LD because they allow you more time to think and when they allow you more time to speak there is no doubt that your going to speak longer. so my overall statement here is this. policy takes more time because they give you more protected thinking time. so as you can see LD is without a doubt the more serious form of debate you win off of evidence and morals you get less time so you have to think on your feet and you dont ordinarily spread and if you do most judges in LD look down on it so i urge a vote for the affirmation i am now open for cross ex.
Anderson Silva did not throw his fight with Chris Weidman

I am hoping to argue with another MMA afficionado over Anderson Silva's stunning loss to Chris Weidman via KO. I have recently seen several commentors speculating that Silva threw the fight to get a bigger rematch. I will be arguing that this is not the case. Obviously there is no concrete evidence, so we will be left to hypothetical examinations of pre and post fight behavior. Burden of proof is on Con to present arguments for Silva intentionally losing the fight. Voters should vote based on who made the best arguments/rebuttals, not who they agree with. Here is the structure of the debate:1st round- Con acceptance2nd round- Pro argument pertaining to motivation. Con rebuttal and opening argument pertaining to pre fight behavior3rd round- Pro rebuttal, Con argument pertaining to behavior during the fight4th round- Pro rebuttal, Con argument pertaining to post fight behavior.5th round- Conclusions from both sides. Most of my last debates ended with forfeits from the other side, so I hope my opponent is dedicated to debating. I look forward to a challenger as passionate as I am and a great debate!
Anderson Silva did not throw his fight with Chris Weidman

www.youtube.com/embed/KDWJEWVhANg This has been a great debate. I've had a lot of fun, and I think we have covered pretty much all the avenues that exist up to this point in time. Goodluck to THElittleRisk! I look forward to seeing the results. Conclusion: 1) I think the pre-fight Silva interviews, the post-fight interviews, and Silva's general attitude towards this fight provide a foundation in which Silva clearly wasn't trying to win and didn't bring his A-Game. 2) I think Silva's contract status, his desire to spend more time with his family and students, his self professed disinterest in any UFC super fights, and his desire to box Roy Jones Jr. offer an understandable and verifiable motive for throwing the fight. 3) The fact that Silva stated that he was not concerned that loosing to Weidman would negatively affect his legacy, removes the primary motive for wanting to win the fight. 4) The extent to which Silva 'clowned' around, the absence of any dangerous counterstrikes, Weidmans numerous missed hooks while mounted on Silva, the fact that Silva appeared to be awake while on the ground, Dana White's insistence that this was a great fight, Weidman's lack of enthusiasm, and Silva's disinterest in ever fighting for the belt again create a clear image of a fight that just didn't seem honest. The details of the fix are not clear, but the evidence suggests that it is more likely that Silva threw the fight than that he unintentionally lost. I want to thank all of you who have read through this lengthy debate, and all of you who commented on this debate. You helped guide our arguments and complete our analysis. Finally, I want to thank my opponent. Can't wait to see who won.
The F.D.A. should not ban flavored Tobacco

Sorry to get back so late as i am a busy man these days with training. I see my opponent has got the personal attack game accomplished with his little "Furthermore, who cares what kind you like?", well who the hell cares about your existence? Anyways. 1. I never said the F.D.A. is banning it. At all. The Title is The F.D.A. SHOULD NOT ban flavored dip. Never said they ARE or going to. The title does not imply that they Will, but the PROPOSED BAN DOES. 2. My opponent's 3'rd argument is extremely improper."you will most likely try more because your body wants the nicotine." I know many people who have dipped both flavored and non flavored dip, and have never dipped again, although the nicotine was in their system. Also the guy who left the first comment on this debate can agree too. 3. My opponents 4'th so called "point" was that i did not provide any evidence. This is correct. This is common sense. All about morality bub. 4. My opponent must also be a stickler about technicalities also. He tried quoting me and failed at that, but, 10 out of 10 people i see dip. My whole platoon dips. So therefore everyone i see and am surrounded by in the USMC dips. 5. My opponents little "Contention" was one of the most hysterical things i have ever seen. Bub. First off it is just the flavor. Fruits arent the only dip flavors bub. There is wintergreen, mint, whiskey, bourbon. Bub the reason they are fruit flavored is because most people like that instead of the burn from the hardcore dips. There is no reason to ban flavored dips because 24 kids might try that instead of a straight dip
The F.D.A. should not ban flavored Tobacco

Hello. I would like to start by thanking my opponent for starting what I am sure to be an interesting debate. I would like to start off my argument by summing up my opponents points from each paragraph, and after each, I will give a short rebuttal. 1. There was a new law passed that gives the FDA power to regulate flavoured tobacco products I would like to point out that just because they have the power, doesn't mean that they will automatically ban it. 2. Some tobacco products were omitted because they are not flavoured. There is not really much I can argue here. It is a fact. 3. My opponent's first dip was non-flavored, and he is now addicted. Great. Nicotine is powerful. No matter what kind you tried first, you will most likely try more because your body wants the nicotine. 4. If you try different kinds of tobacco, you will have the same effect. That argument states again that nicotine is powerful. I agree. The premise is not whether they would get addicted or not. The premise is that the FDA should not ban the flavored tobacco. You have not provided any evidence that they shouldn't. 5. Kids would try all different kinds of chew I disagree, and I will argue that later. 6. My opponent is in the marines, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON has a dip in. Also, he has shared his preference. I disagree again. Not every single person has a dip in. Furthermore, who cares what kind you like? Contention 1 Kids are more likely to try and get addicted to tobacco that is flavored than tobacco that is non-flavored or "natural" flavor. Kids are given a lot of information in elementary school. Two of those things are: 1. Fruits are good. 2. Tobacco is bad. When a child starts to develop more, they start to make associations with their surroundings. If they have grown up eating fuits, and liking them, or eating a lot of fruit candy and liking it, they will be more likely to try more fruity things. If they associate the good thing, fruit, with the bad thing, tobacco, they will be much more likely to try it than if they were to associate the bad thig with a neutral thing. I was a little bit rushed for this argument, so i hope it is good enough. I look forward to your response.
The F.D.A. should not ban flavored Tobacco

Hello before i begin id like to start by saying it's weird to be back after almost a year of absence from my old username "the_conservative". Apparently i wa pretty controversial haha, but let's begin. As we all know a little while back our President Barack Hussein Obama signed legislation giving the Food and Drug Administration power to regulate the manufacturing, marketing and sale of tobacco, which can give them power to ban flavored Dip such as "Skoal Apple" or Chew such as "Beechnut Moonshine" etc. because according to these organizations it is "appealing to youths". Spared from the proposed ban were tobacco products such as Skoal Straght, Grizzly Straight, Copenhagen Longcut,etc... The reason these were excluded from the ban is because these are not "flavored" as opposed to "Natural tobacco flavor" Now remember the proposed ban was to supposedly protect the youths. (if you think they actually care about the youths anyways you got a lot of learnin to do) Well, my very first dip was when i was 15 was Copenhagen Longcut a NON-FLAVORED DIP. and i been dippin ever since. So i assume some of you may be saying right now "Well thats you, thats not what every kid might try for the first time"....Okay well if 100 kids purchase or try dipping and 50 of them dip a flavored one and the other 50 dip a non flavored one for the first time i can guarantee you they will become equally "addicted". If i was a kid ad i was curious about dipping, and i saw a bunch of Natural flavors instead of Fruit flavors i guarantee you id still try it. Here in the Marine Corps and pretty much every military branch everyone walks around with a fatty pinch in. My preferred is Copenhagen maybe you should try it, its pretty good.
The F.D.A. should not ban flavored Tobacco

"I see my opponent has got the personal attack game accomplished with his little "Furthermore, who cares what kind you like? ", well who the hell cares about your existence? Anyways. " In a debate where you are arguing about law, an opinion of a flavour does not matter. The second part is Ad Hominem and doesn't matter. Let's begin with the counterpoints 1. " I never said the F. D. A. is banning it. At all. The Title is The F. D. A. SHOULD NOT ban flavored dip. Never said they ARE or going to. The title does not imply that they Will, but the PROPOSED BAN DOES. " The title does imply that they will, and that you don't agree with it, therefore my point remains valid. 2. "My opponent's 3'rd argument is extremely improper" No it isn't. It wasn't an argument. it was a summary of your paragraph. 3. "My opponents 4'th so called "point" was that i did not provide any evidence. This is correct. " I could just stop debating right here, because he just admitted that he has no evidence, but i won't. If you do not have any evidence, you don't have an argument. 4. "My opponent must also be a stickler about technicalities also. " Yes i am. "He tried quoting me and failed at that" I was paraphrasing, and i succeeded. "My whole platoon dips. So therefore everyone i see and am surrounded by in the USMC dips. " That is not what you said. In that quote, you limited it to your platoon in the marines, and before you said "Here in the Marine Corps and pretty much every military branch everyone walks around with a fatty pinch in. " That insinuates that in the marines and most other branches, every single person has a dip in. 5. "My opponents little "Contention" was one of the most hysterical things i have ever seen. " I'm glad you had fun while reading my debate. "First off it is just the flavor. Fruits arent the only dip flavors bub. There is wintergreen, mint, whiskey, bourbon. " I was just using fruit as an example because it is the most common. "Bub the reason they are fruit flavored is because most people like that instead of the burn from the hardcore dips. " I agree. Not having the burn makes it easier to chew, children have a lower tollerance for pain, so they are more likely to try the one that will give them less pain. "There is no reason to ban flavored dips because 24 kids might try that instead of a straight dip" Where did you get that number from? There is a reason, and that is that children are more likely to try it if they are there. You have posted Ad hominems but little else. This was. .. interesting. I had fun
AMD, within the next 5 years, will take over as the lead processor manufacturer.

Reliability in a company is the strongest thing. AMD has a very dedicated fan base, people that will defend AMD until the day they die. There are certainly people from Intel like that, but the reliability for their processors, and the average temperatures show that if Intel keeps up this whole controversy of temperatures and unreliability, people will slowly see that AMD won't let down their customers. Unlike Intel, where they will do anything to cut corners and make their processors better and cheaper than AMD. AMD has something Intel doesn't. Intel has virtually no competition. Intel will keep packing power into their processor, and keep cutting corners until AMD catches up to them and shows AMD cares about the quality of their products. Even though AMD's processors are objectively worse, the reliability factor will push them past Intel.
AMD, within the next 5 years, will take over as the lead processor manufacturer.

You're not thinking into the future which your whole debate is based on. Intel can fix this with a new processor that will come out. This issue can easily be fixed and it gave Intel a sense of reliability. Its all about what happens in the future. When it comes to the past, Intel was much more reliable. It's just a whole new generation of processors. If Intel didn't come out with a new processor that was more reliable, cheaper, and faster, their processor industry would crash because of Ryzen. I feel like AMD has taken over as the lead processor industry right now but Intel will fight back. Its all a matter of time. I think in 5 years the processors will be cheaper, more reliable, and faster.
AMD, within the next 5 years, will take over as the lead processor manufacturer.

Much progress will be made with the next generation of processors. Performance but stability is a big thing in processors. To me it just feels like Intel is trying to cram power into their processors, with a lower price tag than AMD to seem better. Again, the pre-applied thermal paste is a big thing Intel got criticism for. The only way to fix their mistake was to de-lid the processor and apply another coating of thermal paste. Even then, you'd be voiding the warranty. Lucky for consumers, one company decided to cash in on this and made a de-lidding tool for the new i9-7900x, and i7-7700k. This won't be out for some time though. (see here: ) This is a safe way to de-lid your processor and apply new thermal paste, safely rather than dangerously, with a knife. If Intel had simply upped the price of the processor, with better thermal paste, they would have not had this problem. I honestly think this is the knife that will cut the deepest for Intel, and be the downfall of their reliability.
AMD, within the next 5 years, will take over as the lead processor manufacturer.

Honestly, we cant for sure know what"s gonna happen in the future. I don't feel like AMD will completely take over Intel. With Intel and AMD, there has been a lot of competition and people have been switching. It has been switching and competition has been going since AMD was founded. I don't feel like Intel's processor industry will be wiped out because of AMD. I feel like one might fall but we don't know for sure. I think the competition will keep going well past the 5-year mark. Unless another company comes along and destroys them, but that is highly unlikely. I think Intel will hit back hard sometime over the rainbow. Ryzen and Threadripper isn't the end of the processor industry for Intel. It's extremely close right now. with Intel going down to 56% to 44%. When Intel releases another processor it will shift. I don't know if Intel or AMD will lead in 5 years. It will be extremely close in 5 years but it just depends if Intel will counter Ryzen and AMD will counter Intel's counter. I'm not arguing Intel will take over, I'm Debating that we won't know. Its how the way the market works. The competing company makes a brand new product and the rival company will make a new better product, increasing sales and then the rival company must counter this. Intel or AMD's processor industry is far from over and neither company will give up.
AMD, within the next 5 years, will take over as the lead processor manufacturer.

Back in the first quarter of 2017, Intel launched it's seventh generation of i7 processors, some of the best performing processors of the year. The i7-7700k was being quite questionable, with temperatures up to 90 degrees Celsius on full load. It wasn't long until AMD launched their 1800x processor, coming close, if not equal to Intel's i7-6900k. Finally, the 2 big companies that had been chugging along, were getting competitive. Recently, there has come to light that the thermal paste under the lid of the i7-7700k and many other newer generations of Intel processors had been getting stock, faulty, and almost useless thermal paste. Is this going to be the downfall of Intel? Or is this just a smudge on their record? Will AMD take this opportunity to deliver even greater performance and reliability, or will Intel step up and own their mistake, promising greater reliability in their processors?