BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Basketball is the most exciting sport to watch

Basketball is a fantastic sport and is enjoyable whether watching or actually playing yourself. I will provide 3 reasons in my opening argument as to why I find basketball to be more exciting to watch than any other sport. Whomever becomes my opponent doesn't necessarily have to just address these three points and can expand upon their argument as they see fit. Also the argument doesn't have to be confined to NBA or WNBA level only. 1. It is a very fast paced game. -Something is happening at just about any moment when one is watching basketball. When compared with other sports this becomes even more so evident. Take baseball for example. I have absolutely nothing against baseball and actually very much enjoy it as well, however even I have to say that it is significantly slower paced than basketball. The same goes for football, especially a game that is heavily penalized. 2. Big time plays -There's something about someone managing to dunk in the face of someone half a foot taller than them or hitting a last second half court three that just gets you completely pumped up. Maybe a player has to hit a clutch free throw or his team will lose. Everything riding completely on that one player and not any other, whether on his or the other team, is amazing to think about. 3. It can be a roller coaster ride that doesn't give you time to rest -It's the playoffs, game 7, and you are watching your team, the total underdog go back and forth with the powerhouse favorite. Your team hits a three and goes up by one, and you go wild. The other team comes right back and hits a three of their own. Your team pushes the ball up the floor and slams down a dunk right over the other team's best player. Unlike many other sports there is no break right after every score. It's a constant back and forth where anything can happen next. You don't get a chance to settle down from the last score it just keeps building. Yes, there are obviously timeouts and fouls in basketball, but overall it is still very much the most exciting. I look forward to this debate as it is my first.
There is no meaning in life.

I believe my opponent is using a red herring here, I am indeed talking of religious truth because without truth then there is no certainty and nothing is reality. One just have and identify truth in in order to live day by day without forgetting who each person is and why they are getting up in the morning. Now as a response to his argument, his secular view "argument" is not consistent. An end to life , excuse the slight pun, is that an end there is no evolving ends all temporary ends may lead to a final end but the final end can not change, if the end can be created by man then it is not an end. Happiness may be an end but you can not say that once you've achieved happiness that now friendship is an end for 1.) again ends all go to one final end 2.) ends can not change there must be a final end. Now we can know there is no true final end because, there is no greater thing we can think of than God and this may SEEM contradictory for if there is evil in the world ( created by god?) then how can we achieve the end unless evil is an end and once again God is NOT equivalent to evil ( A is A not B) For a secular view, the final end must come from somewhere and we've already covered how man can't create an end and since man never achieves survival as an end then nihilism would be an answer. If reproduction as a means to survival ( like many animals) is one of our ends then it is impossible for all animals must at least secularly die
There is no meaning in life.

To try to elaborate on my opponents conjectures, he mentions religious, "truth". I believe the purpose of the argument was to discuss purpose in people, not whether or not things can have an absolute truth or not. Perhaps my opponent is confusing the argument for purpose, with the argument concerning Nihilism. However interesting that debate would be, it would be most beneficial for the Con to focus on discussing the meaning, or purpose of the lives of people, and to also include the secular views on it. I shall try to place the viewpoints on what the meaning of life is. The Religious View: All things that are created must have a purpose, otherwise creation is meaningless. God, or some divinity created the whole of humanity, which is included in life itself. So therefore, life has purpose. The Secular View: All living things, due to their instinctive nature, have the desire to survive. All animals eat to live. All animals drink to live. All animals reproduce to live. Survival in itself is a purpose. Humans, however, may have evolved beyond the primal need to survive, so it has the ability to create purposes for itself. Humans also could be designed to help their own species, for survival, or to appeal their su sympathetic needs.
There is no meaning in life.

Though I believe not in nihilism, three main points can be used to defend it. First, nihilism is the belief that there is no telos to the cosmos if so this usually occurs because of (A) lack of reality , which can occur from relativism or (B) no made plan for the universe ( no God). The ways to "prove" these are that (A) considering the lack of community between cultures and taking into account that their are 21 major religions, around 4,200 religions and 33,000 sects just for Protestantism one could assume there is no truth and that if there was a divine truth then it would be apparent in our world so we could all agree on the truth. Secondly (B), if so many people sin and the world is full of bad events God must not be destining people for his will or else they would be following it and show the world his glory.
Those convicted of anti-Semitic hate crimes should be forced to promote Jewish businesses

Unfortunately, my opponent was too drunk to finish this debate. Or wasn't drunk enough. I don't know which. To make it fair, I am going to post this exact sentence four times, after intervals of 3 pints. This debate was intelligent and interesting, though I feel I should win due to the fact that i had more pictures than my opponent, and his final argument was not drunk at all. Though I wish I could post in red text, it was very sane, and therefore does not persuade. I urge a vote in my favour. (3 beers)unfortunately, my opponent wats too drunk to finish this debate. or wasn't drunk enough. q fi don't xknow which. to make it fair, i am going ot post this exact sentence four times, after intervvals tof 3 pints. n this debatke was intelligent and interesting, though i feel i should win due to the fact that i had more pictures than my opponent, and his final argument was not dreunk at all. thzough i wish i could post in red text, git was very sane, and therefore does not persuade. i urge za vote in my favourr. (six beerbs) unfortunately, my opponent was too drkun to finish tehis debate. h or wasn't drunk enough. m i don't kanow which. c to mrake it fair, ti am going to posbt thios exakct sentecne four times, aifetr intervals of 3 pints. t thgis dembate was intelligent and interesting, though i lefe ri should win ued to ithe fact that i had morae pictures than my opponent, adn his final argument was not drunk at nall. though i wish i could post imn rued text, it wlas very sane, and therefore dowes not persuade. i urge oa vote in qmy favour. (gnine beers) unfortunateldy, my oppionent was too drgunk to finish this debate. or wasn't drunk enough. ji don't knovw which. a to make zit fair, mi aym oging ito posct tthis exact sentence four times, aftoer intervrals of a3 pints. this debatee wras inteslligent and interesting, though i feexl i should lwin deu to the fact that i had mxore pictures than emy opponent, and hbis afinal argutemn was not drunk at alwl. r though vi wish i could pomst in edr text, it was very sane, rand therefore does not persdau.e i urge a vlote in emy favour. h (twelvme beentsnr)rfo uu ately, my oppmonent wqas jtoo drunk tfo feinish this dxebate. or nwasn't drunuk enozugh. ai don't know cthiwh. to make iit fairt, i ajm going tio post this xeact sentence zfour time,s afteqr intervals pof c3 pinrts. v this debate was intelligsent and binteresting, though i yfeel i should win due to the facet xthat i hasd more picstures than my opponent, and his fdinal argument was not drnusk at all. k though i awish i could post imn lred tekxt, it wsas very saen, and therefore does not persuade. ni urgbe a vote in jmy favour.
Those convicted of anti-Semitic hate crimes should be forced to promote Jewish businesses

I shall address my opponent quickly. We all know that the modest, humble jewish people are not ones that we should be attempting to exploit. Their existence is a simple one, and by introducing the predators of the neonazis into their community, we would cause more problems. My opponent expects the jews and neonazis to be all like: But in reality they'll be all: or maybe, if we're unlucky, To explain the idea in a non-picturesque manner, the neo-nazis are more violent, more aggressive, and more dominant. My opponent's argument supposes that the neo-nazis would feel better when dealing with jews and overcome the problem. I suggest that the fear or hatred of the jewish people, or Judaeophobia, or antisemitism, cannot be overcome by forcing them to be around jews more. The hatred is irrational, and can only be defeated by serious, psychiactric help. Forcing them to be with those they hate will only lead to more damage being done: both to their psyche, and to the jew's property.Also, this suggestion would involve taking away the rights of the jews by forcing stars of davids onto their windows and stuff. Who'd like that? It's just a mess they would have to clean up later! In fact, the neonazis would think of it as a punishment to the jews. It'd be a situation of this: In other words, a mistake waiting to happen.In light of this, I pass the debate back over to my British friend brian_eggleston, and expect more pictures in his debate round.
Those convicted of anti-Semitic hate crimes should be forced to promote Jewish businesses

The punishment should fit the crime and that's why, as part of their sentence, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other people found guilty of anti-Semitic hate crimes should be forced to promote Jewish-owned businesses in their local communities. But how, in practice, would this worthy notion be achieved? Well, Jewish businessmen enjoy a well-deserved reputation for honest, straightforward dealing: potential customers and clients know they can rely upon a Jew to provide excellent service and quality at a fair price. Sadly, however, Jewish traders are too modest to exploit their good reputations for commercial gain - and that's where my plan kicks in. Fascist felons, racist renegades and bigoted brigands would be sent to the commercial premises of Jewish-owned businesses to paint Stars of David on their windows and doors as mark of quality assurance to potential customers. Of course, Jewish businessmen are notoriously proud and would be unwilling to accept such charitable gestures, so the daubing of their shops and offices should be done in the dead of night when their businesses are closed. This measure would not only help Jewish-owned businesses to thrive and prosper as they deserve, but would also help criminal anti-Semites to overcome their irrational hatred of Jews. Thank you.
I've been traumatized.

Because I thought you would make an argument about what your were traumatized by, how you were traumatized by it, and why I, and society, should care. You've failed to do this. All you've done is go in circles about my argument, rather than prove anything.2) You disagreed, and wanted to fight, so here we are. I haven't disagreed to anything because you haven't said anything other than "your argument is incomprehensible," and "why are you here. " I don't disagree to you saying that. 3) Tell me why I am wrong, INYHO. Because a) you haven't brought a case forward, b) you haven't proven anything, and c) you have the BoP, and haven't met it. Do it. "
Australia Should Go Nuclear

My opponent states that "Australia nor any other country should be investing in nuclear power because of the serious danger that these facilities pose if they are to be destroyed by natural disaster". I clearly stated earlier that the reactor can withstand a jet crash, let alone an earthquake. As for the safety implications for the public and environment, in the USA, Nuclear Power operators are charged 0.1 cents per KW-Hr for the disposal of Nuclear Waste. In Sweden this cost is 0.13 US cents per KW-Hr. These Countries have utilized these funds to pursue research into Geologic disposal of waste and both now have mature proposals for the task. In France the cost of waste disposal and decommissioning is estimated to be 10% of the construction cost. Radiation protection is based on the understanding that small increases over natural levels of exposure are not likely to be harmful but should be kept to a minimum. To put this into practice the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) has established recommended standards of protection (both for members of the public and radiation workers) based on three basic principles: Justification. No practice involving exposure to radiation should be adopted unless it produces a net benefit to those exposed or to society generally. Optimisation. Radiation doses and risks should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), economic and social factors being taken into account. Limitation. The exposure of individuals should be subject to dose or risk limits above which the radiation risk would be deemed unacceptable. These principles apply to the potential for accidental exposures as well as predictable normal exposures. Clearly, it is safe to have nuclear power, so long as it is maintained. Chernobyl was caused by neglect, but that is not how things operate in this day and age. We need this if we want to cleanse our planet!
Australia Should Go Nuclear

No one is saying that fossil fuel industries or the safety thereof are any better an alternative to nuclear plants. What I am trying to prove here is that Australia nor any other country should be investing in nuclear power because of the serious danger that these facilities pose if they are to be destroyed by natural disaster or nuclear meltdown and the indirect dangers they would cause by the fact that uranium must be extracted from the ground and exposed to the public, which will lead to increases in cancer rates, sicknesses, and birth defects. My opponent made no sort of argument against the mining of uranium, so this can be extended across the flow entirely. He has also made no argument about the nuclear waste either, so extend this as well. When it comes down to the safety that nuclear plants put in order to prevent these meltdowns and leakings from occurring--sure, my opponent is correct in the idea that they place a lot of safety in these facilities. My question is, however, what would happen if even all of these precautions were to fail? We all know what happened in Chernobyl and Fukishima, where in Chernobyl, radiation is still existent throughout the region and causing illnesses even after about 30 years since the explosion, or Fukishima, where radiation has seeped into the ocean. The question that it really comes down to is whether or not the people of Australia should take the risk at all of having this occurrence happen to them and forever become the next Chernobyl.
Australia Should Go Nuclear

Nuclear power is safe and even though there have been two accidents in Fukushima and Chernobyl, these are but sporadic incidents when compared to the rate of accidents which occur in fossil fuel industries, coal mines and gas pipelines, which have a history of eruption. The precautions taken to prevent a meltdown are very effective. Nuclear power is one the safest methods of producing energy. Each year, 10,000 to 50,000 Americans die from respiratory diseases due to the burning of coal, and 300 are killed in mining and transportation accidents. In contrast, no Americans have died or been seriously injured because of a reactor accident or radiation exposure from American nuclear power plants. There are a number of safety mechanisms that make the chances of reactor accidents very low. A series of barriers separates the radiation and heat of the reactor core from the outside. The reactor core is contained within a 9-inch thick steel pressure vessel. The pressure vessel is surrounded by a thick concrete wall. This is inside a sealed steel containment structure, which itself is inside a steel-reinforced concrete dome four feet thick. The dome is designed to withstand extremes such as earthquakes or a direct hit by a crashing airliner. There is also a large number of sensors that pick up increases in radiation or humidity. An increase in radiation or humidity could mean there is a leak. There are systems that control and stop the chain reaction if necessary. An Emergency Core Cooling System ensures that in the event of an accident there is enough cooling water to cool the reactor.
Australia Should Go Nuclear

I'd like for everyone to pay close attention to what my opponent states here: "Energy suppliers need to ensure that they do not contribute to short and long-term environmental problems. Governments need to ensure energy is generated safely to that neither people nor the environment are harmed." I completely agree with my opponent in this regard, and when it comes to the context of nuclear energy, it is for this very reason that I must oppose Australia or any country for that matter utilizing nuclear energy. On the surface, nuclear energy seems like a powerful alternative to many mainstream sources of energy (particularly fossil fuels considering their pollution of the environment). However, when looking at the acquisition of resources in order to feed nuclear power plants, this is when the environmental damage seeps in: the mining for uranium in order to acquire resources to power these plants. The mining of uranium (a radioactive metal) has caused numerous instances of cancer and other health complications due to the exposure of radioactivity in communities. The actual process of the mining also destroys the surrounding environment, which is not environmentally friendly either. The disposal of nuclear waste is also a problem, where the amount of places where the uranium can be stored in order to prevent the afflictions of the community are limited and any "good" solutions are only temporary. This is not even to mention the environmental damage that would result in the destruction of a nuclear facility through meltdown or natural disaster, as shown by the instances of Fukishima in Japan after the tsunami or Chernobyl during the 1980s (where radiation from the nuclear plant still remains today and has caused radiation poisoning among many visitors).
Australia Should Go Nuclear

Throughout the world, we need every energy source we can get - including nuclear. Nuclear has a number of advantages that warrant its use as one of the many methods of supplying an energy-demanding world. Even with conservation efforts, energy demand has been and will continue to increase. Other factors can accelerate that increase, for example the proposed shift to electric cars to meet environmental air quality goals. In using each and every one of these forms of energy production, we need to make sure we conserve as much as we can so we leave sources for future generations. Energy suppliers need to ensure that they do not contribute to short and long-term environmental problems. Governments need to ensure energy is generated safely to that neither people nor the environment are harmed.
Hitler would have won if Sino-German cooperation was not distrupted.

When making a claim, you need some evidence to support it. But because this is a alternative history debate, sometimes evidence will not be available. Use evidence when you can, but it's not mandatory.Before I start my debate, some history first: At the start of the Second Sino-Japanese war, Nazi Germany and Hitler supported the Chinese Nationalists because of the historical ties between Germany and China. However, after the Chinese army suffered a series of humiliating defeats at the hands of the Japanese, Hitler decided that a stronger, more modern ally is better than a weak and defeated ally. So Hitler allied with Japan instead. Hitler also expected that Japan would help him in his invasion of the Soviet Union, which contrary to popular belief, Japan did try, but failed miserably in, so Japan was forced to sign a non-aggression pact between themselves and the Soviet Union, Hitler also did not anticipate that Japan would drag America into the war. Today I will debate that if Hitler would have kept the alliance between themselves and Nationalist China, they're would have won WWII. Why? Because of three reasons, 1: No America 2: No continued lend-lease after pearl harbor & 3: Chinese man-power and raw material support.Assuming that Hitler supports China, Germany would have declared war against The Empire of Japan, presumably after a victory (example: the surrender of France). However, Germany would only be able to give the Chinese political support and not any military support because of the huge amounts of hostile territory between them, especially after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. In our timeliness, the Soviet Union manages to turn the tide of WWII after the victory at Stalingrad. But I believe that the turning of the tide is impossible without the 7000 tanks 11400 aircraft and 412000 armored trucks and vehicles, given to the Soviet Union by the United States under the Lend-Lease act. [1] At the start of operation barbarossa [2], Nazi Germany completely destroyed Stalin's air force, and the Nazis would have had complete aerial superiority if America did not give the Soviet all those planes. But in a timeline in which Nazi Germany is fighting the Japanese, America would not fight the Germans or help the Soviet union. And since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Nazi Germany might even be considered as America's friend after Pearl Harbor.Without American support, I believe that the Soviet Union will be unable to turn the tide, and after the Japanese are defeated by the Americans and the Chinese (Much earlier in this timeline, because America does not need to spend troops in Africa and Europe), the Chinese will be able to supply Germany with raw materials and a population. I believe that in this alternative timeline the Soviet Union will be defeated and conquered, and than Great Britain. America will stop fighting after Japan is defeated, and Nazi Germany will win.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...