BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should The US Keep Net Neutrality

Hey, I'm really interested in this topic so I'm gonna be playing devil's advocate. Framing: There has been massive hysteria around net neutrality, but it really isn't that bad, and the repeal would do more good than harm. -Ajit Pai says it best: "the sky isn"t falling, consumers will stay protected, internet will continue to thrive." >>Contentions<< 1. Federal Control of the Internet is Dangerous: -Wired Magazine: The govt, through FCC, now has the vast power to regulate what is essential info. Govt overreach is being done in the name of net neutrality -Tech Law & Policy Attorney David O"Neil: The FCC can forbid or allow one thing after anotherU94; shaping what you can/can"t see on the internet -the problem of, "blocking and slowing down certain info is bad," is possible in the hands of gov. too! -Appeals Court Judge Judy Silberman: Now the gov. can do whatever it wants as long as it is, "making the Internet better." Gov. really has no filter now. Ex: 2 years ago, in San Fransisco, the local police department shut down all of the internet to stop a protest. The government had the power to suppress free speech because they had access to the internet. THE INTERNET WOULD BE BETTER IN THE HANDS ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. -Also, according to NPR(and proven from page 249 in the official net neutrality rulebook): ISPs must disclose when they are slowing down certain traffic, thus showing customer when it is happening. Thus the customer is always informed, and very little harm can come from the repeal of Net Neutrality 2. Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation: -FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumersU94; benefit. -basically, ISPs have more power to create better service when the gov. isn"t breathing down their necks. -to simplify this: if we repeal net neutrality, then ISPs will be able to make faster internet for everyone -a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content -Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for "slow service," or being, "anti-free speech," so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. -also, why is NN so important when before it was implemented, the internet was fine with none of these, "dire problems?" 3. Fairness and Desirability: -lets think super logically: services that require high amounts of reliability like hospitals would do much better w/out NN -I am talking to my dr. online about a serious heart condition that I have. That deserves faster internet connection than someone downloading music. ISPs should have the ability to speed up more important things -w/out Net Neutrality ISPs would be able to block harmful content like viruses & scams -the common thought is that ISPs will ruin free speech and block certain websites that they don"t agree w/ but, really they will block undesirable things that no one wants to run into while online All these factors make repealing NN beneficial & desirable Thanks, Love to hear your response
Should The US Keep Net Neutrality

Here are the rules. 1. Remain professional 2. Forfeiting a round means forfeiting the debate. You have three days to make an argument, you can take out 20 minutes to type up a paragraph. 3. Please use reliable sources. 4. Don't bring further politics into this, please. This is a debate about Net Neutrality, not about whether or not we should or shouldn't impeach your weird president. 5. Just. .. don't be cancerous.
Runescape is better then WoW.

Hello there, thank you for posting your argument. "You will constantly have a flood of random people coming in and out of your channel" That is the point, social clan chats are meant to have many people coming in and out of the clan chat. You will always have many people to talk to instead of being in a silent guild or clan. "In Wow we have many more channels of communication then in runescape" I disagree with you here, there are endless clan chats, any one can make a clan chat. There are also clan chats meant to help you in a single area of the game meaning you get your help faster. "Worldwide chat vs house party" Those trade chats are only open in city's where there is usually people already, not any where and any time. The trade chat is more like a famous runescapers clan chat. A more accurate argument would be "Trade chat vs Clan chats." While the runescape house party's are still in its own league versus wow. (By they way, the runescape house party's aren't just hanging around. While socializing is fun to do with people you can also test your skill in dungeons players create in their homes. "every quest that you do tells and leads a story that usually ends in a climatic way" Sorry, i just don't see anything that climatic about gathering 10 pieces of crab meat, while at higher levels some quests chains may have some climatic ways of ending, you feel empty as the main reward you get becomes outdated at maxed level. A majority of the runescape quests has a interesting way of ending a quest or a special boss fight style that hasn't been used in runescape before as well as a reward that won't be replaced by something else. Runescape quests have different styles of quests. Here is a good sample of the last part of a quest showing some of the rewards. http://www.youtube.com... "If its not broken don't fix it" This is why as of right now "70% of trial players quit wow before level 10" http://www.wow.com... "runescape" List Requires timing on eating and using your special attacks, this takes me to my next point. A few "Real" ability's runescape has, -Many special attacks (link has list of special attacks) http://www.runescape.com... -Healing spells, Spells that recoil damage to someone, Many more prayers then one or 2. http://www.runescape.com... http://www.runescape.com... -Summoning familiars/Summoning familiars special attacks http://www.runescape.com... http://www.runescape.com... "World of warcraft" section of the list. As i showed you above, runescape also has many ability's and spells Runescape also has "PVP" worlds, these are worlds that you can fight freely against other A majority of the time the "strategy" is pile the one guy in your base in battlegrounds.
Runescape is better then WoW.

-Ello ello and thanks for starting such a debate- -"Rune cape has more social aspects to it then wow."- -My opponent claims that you can freely leave and reenter any clan chat in Runescape while in World of Warcraft you must ask a ranking officer. (which is false anyway in most cases.) Though this may be slightly more convenient, is it truly better for the game community as a whole? Of course not because you will constantly have a flood of random people coming in and out of your channel.- -"However, wow lacks non combat social "party's."- -Really? you don't have to be in a dungeon in wow to be in a party or raid group with friends or other members of the game, plus we have guilds and chat channels in every part of the game for people to chat in. In WoW we have many more channels of communication then in runescape and you can now customize individual windows to filter out what types of chat get to you making it much more organized then runescape as well.- -"Runescape has house party's, this is where you can visit other peoples houses and just hang out with a group of players, you can also do this wow, but be honest, how often do you see people in wow do this?"- -I play the game for the actual gameplay and end game content :P not to rave with random people, but if you really wanted to compare this to something in wow I would have to say trade chat.. its pretty much the worldwide chat in the game where everyone talks. Worldwide chat vs house party <.<.. yea- -"runescape clearly has better quests. Wow quests are similar to runescape slayer tasks. "Kill X number of X."- -So even though the quests are what you would call similar to each other, the runescape ones are better because of story and lore? I'm pretty sure that if you took the time to play through an entire zone in world of warcraft you would realize that every quest that you do tells and leads a story that usually ends in a climactic way at the end of the zone, giving much more depth then a quest that may take a few minutes in runescape- -"but the objectives are just "Destroy, Defend, Discover Drop, and Deliver " just the same things over 80 levels."- -That is basically the set up for every quest of most if not all mmo quests, if its not broken don't fix it.- -"Wow does have better pvp, however, wow fails to take advantage of this most of the time." -Okay, lets compare really quick the pvp of WoW to runescape, Runescape: - turn based battles (you swing your opponent then swings etc.) - No real abilities to use except maybe a prayer or two (AYPIC) - No real variety in the types of games (CTF and just plain killing) To name a few things World Of Warcraft - Massive arsenal of ability's and spells to use during combat - Siege battles and actual world pvp (not just restricted to one place) - More strategy can be applied during combat because of the way combat flows and works To name a few things out of characters 4321
Runescape is better then WoW.

I believe runescape is better then wow because runescape has: 1. More Social Aspects. Runescape has more social aspects to it then wow. Wow has guilds while Runescape has clan chats, these are the same thing but in runescape you can leave the clan chat and reenter freely while in wow you need to ask a ranking office to rejoin. Both games Also have group bosses and "dungeons" also. However, wow lacks non combat social "party's. " Runescape has house partys, this is where you can visit other peoples houses and just hang out with a group of players, you can also do this wow, but be honest, how often do you see people in wow do this? Also the clan chat feature in runescape clearly works better as you can always join a large clan chat in runescape rather then being stuck in a guild that doesn't have any one on during the day. 2. Better quests You may say wow has more quests, but runescape clearly has better quests. Wow quests are similar to runescape slayer tasks. "Kill X number of X. " Runescape quests have more story lines and rewards you won't throw away in 3 to 5 levels. You can say wow has story in its quests, but the objectives are just "Destroy, Defend, Discover Drop, and Deliver " just the same things over 80 levels. 3. More and Better Minigames Wow does have better pvp, however, wow fails to take advantage of this most of the time. The only place you will use skill in pvp is Arenas and Dueling. The other "battlegrounds" or "minigames" Either require you to pile other players or use some machines instead of true skillful pvp. In Runescape one mini game alone covers all of arena's, clan wars. Clan wars will let you 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 5v5, 10v10 and possibly 200v200 if you fight in 2 full clan chats. This clearly alone covers the only good mini game in wow, as well as dueling. Lets look at the other " mini games" in wow. WSG = Castle Wars AB = Nothing in runescape AV = Soul wars Strand of the ancients = Nothing in runescape EOS = AB Rip off Isle of conquest = AV rip off Lets see what runescape has in combat mini games Barbarian assault = no mini game in wow, but possibly raid dungeon. Stealing creations = nothing in wow Fist of guthix = nothing in wow Mobilizing army's = Nothing in wow Conquest = nothing in wow Tzhaar fight pits = nothing in wow
Mickey Mantle is better than Ty Cobb

All right, time for round 2. First off, I want to say that I do not feel that my argument is invalid. My opponent did absolutely nothing to disprove how much more valuable to his team Mickey Mantle was than Ty Cobb. Now for my main agruments. Looks (I can't believe I'm writing this): When neither of the players are regarded as extemely handsome or extremely ugly, usually the difference in looks is not that much. Nevertheless, over his career, Mantle was portrayed as a young, youthful baseball player with boyish charm. I believe that Mantle looks better than Cobb(who has a rather odd face). Slugging: Slugging Percentage is a percenatge that is calculated by total bases/at bats. Total bases is singles+(doubles*2)+(triples*3)+(home runs*4). In essence, slugging is more important than batting average because batting average treats singles as the same as doubles and as the same as home runs. Ty Cobb's career slugging percenatge is .512. Mantle's career slugging percenatge is at .557, which is 45 points higher. Now, yes Cobb's batting average is 68 points hitgher than Mantle's. But as I proved before, slugging average is more important than batting average. Slugging is about 1.6 times more important than batting average. Therfore, Mantle is acutally better than Cobb (72 point advanatage in slugging to Cobb's 68 points in batting average). OPS+: There is another stat called OPS+. This stats is an advanced verison of OPS, which is on base percenatge plus slugging average. The complete formula for OPS+ is: [(On base percenatge/league on base percenatge)+(Slugging Average/League Slugging Average)-1]*100. OPS+ is very important because it takes into account era and it takes into account on base percenatge, which is the most important raw stat. Cobb's career OPS+ is 168, which is very good. Mantle, however has a higher OPS+; his is 172. Therefore, Mantle has better statsitics relative to his league. Thank You. Sources: 1) http://www.baseball-reference.com... 2) http://www.baseball-reference.com...
Mickey Mantle is better than Ty Cobb

Championships: Mickey Mantle led his team to 7 World Series Victories and 10 World Series Appearances. Cobb played in "only" 3 World Series and lost all of them! Mickey Mantle also set World Series records of 18 home runs, 42 runs and 40 runs batted in. Mantle was an amazing postseason player. Defense and Leadership: Cobb was a large destructive force on his team. Among players who hurt their team with their personality the most, Cobb is at the top with Dick Allen and Rogers Hornsby. Mickey Mantle was a well liked player on the Yankees. Although he cannot really be described as a team leader, he did not hurt his team like Cobb did and raised morale. Now, for defense, Cobb was a terrible defensive center fielder. Cobb basically just stood in center field and he hurt his team a lot by costing them a lot of runs. Mantle isn't a well known defensive great. Although Mantle was not as a good defensive player as Joe Dimaggio, Willie Mays and Roberto Clemente, he had a more than adaquete defense, certainly much better than Cobb.
Mickey Mantle is better than Ty Cobb

Round 4 Batting Average and Secondary Average: Secondary Average is a useful stat that measure the ability to get on base, power and steals. Historically, secondary average is about the same as batting average, but it ranges from .100 to .500. Cobb's career secondary average is .333. which is pretty good, but Mantle has a monstrous .491. This completely wipes out Cobb's advantage in steals and batting average. This is because: a) secondary average is more important than batting average b) stolen bases is included in secondary average, therefore it cannot be counted again Runs Created: Runs created is a stat created by Bill James. Mantle created runs at .201 runs per plate appearance. Cobb created .190 runs per plate appearance. Mantle created more runs. Sources: 1) http://www.baseball-reference.com... 2) http://www.baseball-reference.com...
Are pitbulls mean? Pro-yes, Con-no

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://bslnews.org... These sites above are full of inspiriting stories of pit bulls saving their owners and even other pets in the household from various dangers. Pit Bulls have the awful stereotype of being horrible dogs and always are attacking people and are used in dog fights. There are plenty of other types of dogs that do just that. Just because the dog is a pit bull does not mean that it is going to act that way. Pit Bulls can be very nice and warm dogs to have in your house and you will not have to worry about them hurting anyone. Nobody ever talks about other dogs when they attack someone or are used in dog fights, they only talk about Pit Bulls because that is their persona.
"In God We Trust" on the currency is unconstitutional and should be removed.

Just so you know, I'm an atheist. My religion is not influencing this argument in any way. The Establishment clause is fairly loosely worded. The interpretation held today, as decided by Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, is this: "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State." The inclusion of the phrase 'In God We Trust' on the dollar bill is not a law of any sort, and does not in any way aid the Christian church, or any other church. It does not force or influence any person to become religious. So the inclusion of the phrase, by this passage, is completely constitutional. Unless you want to argue against my above reasoning, you must be assuming that this interpretation is incorrect. Let's look at the Establishment Clause itself: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is obviously much vaguer than the interpretation posted above, but it would really be a stretch to say that this means the government cannot use religious symbols or words. If it is, then tell me exactly how you would interpret this. On a side note, your argument has come up in several court cases, one of which being Aronow v. United States. The ruling was "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."
Rebellion and revolution is possible in America today

This isn't really an argument to me, but rather a method of figuring out the problems of this topic and how to solve them. A debate format being perfect for the task. I'll be attempting to prove that rebellion and revolution are possible in America today. Con's job would be to disprove that it is possible by asserting counter arguments & debunking my claims, and summarizing why it isn't possible. I'm not looking to boost my score, I could care less. I'm looking for a good argument, and I'd rather not get into semantics or personnel attacks. I could care less if your spelling or grammar is poor, as long as your arguments and points are strong. Round 1 - acceptance. Round 2 - initial arguments. Rounds 3 & 4 - no holds bar, counter if you want, make new points, etc. Round 5 - no holds bar, must include Conclusions. The ideal Con would have a government job, have military background, be financially secure & have a family (as a person of these attributes is least likely to think that a revolution is possible).
Rebellion and revolution is possible in America today

I am very sorry for the accidental forfeit. I am also very grateful to my opponent passing the round. So in this round, I will be attaching my opponent's contentions. I am guessing that round 5 will be for defense. 1. My opponent says in point 1 "2012, only 146,311,000 people registered to vote for the presidential election. This is significantly lower than the estimated US population during 2012, which was 313,900,00. These figures tell us that only 46% of the total population engage in voting". This argument is pure speculation, and not fact. According to americanprogress, between 30 and 40% of nonvoters are young, and uneducated. Alot of these people just do not have the knowledge of voting. My opponent's first argument is more of a speculation. 2. My opponent also has tried to use the technology argument to prove that people can communicate secretly. The NSA program if I have to remind everyone is still here. It won't go away. NSA collects information from computers, phones, and other forms of internet based devices. It would seem very fishy if a computer had its ip address(computer address) turned off for long periods of time. Secret communications can be ruled as irrelevant. 3. The government spends over 16 trillion dollars on our military. Our military can handle a rebellion. Also statistically proven, people who are interested in guns lies in the deep south. And these people are very patriotic about there country. Also, America still holds one of the best military weapons, and cybernetic intelligence in the world. America can use its tanks, its drones, its automatic rifles etc, to fend off a large attack. 4. Educated people would also know that other countries don't even let their people get as educated as Americans. And, even if you are educated, you would probably somewhere above the low middle class. 5. If their ever is a rebellion, newsrooms, and upper-class men will get involved. Alot of people will try to spend money trying to give these people a bad reputation. America's NSA programs can even shut down YouTube channels if they wanted. You Tubers can get blocked for doing this. Also, Google has the ability to be shutdown be the government which will threaten their business. Good Luck with your next argument! https://www.americanprogress.org...