BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Starcraft 2 will take over the pro scene of Starcraft 1

Starcraft 2 will take over Starcraft 1 eventually. In an interview Jaedong, the second ranked player in the world [1], has stated that he would switch to Starcraft 2, but said the time frame was unknown, but still eventual. Famous people who have already switched to Starcraft 2 are July, Boxer, NaDa, MVP, and ZergBong. JulyZerg was dominant in the past years, Boxer being regarded as the single person who made Starcraft as pupular as it is, and NaDa is known for being the most dominant player to play Starcraft. Also, worse players are also switching. MVP and Zergbong were not very sucessful in their Progamer life, and switched to SC2 in hopes of being dominant there. Less famous players will mostly all try to switch to SC2 as a revival of their career. Brood War is having an enormous conflict with Blizzard, and they are quarreling for the profit and control over the scene [2] Brood war is falling apart. People are switching, the best ones and the worse ones. 1. . http://www.teamliquid.net... 2. . http://www.teamliquid.net...
Global Warming Exists

Round 1This debate is about global warming, and whether or not is a real phenomenon. I will take the Pro side of the premise that global warming is real and that it is a result of human beings. This debate will have 3 rounds with 10,000 characters per round. Each debater will have 72 hours to post their arguments. I have made this debate impossible to accept, if you wish to debate this subject I ask you to leave a comment or PM me. The debate structure will be generic with the first round for acceptance. I hope this turns out to be a civil, yet interesting debate. Good luck!
The United States has the highest national potential than any other country...

I am greatly disappointed that my opponent did not respond. I thought that this was a very interesting topic and really hope that my opponent responds, perhaps writing a case in the comments. I'd really like some of response. Either way, I extend all my arguments: America has a economical and natural resource reliance on other countries, will be outclassed militarily, and does not provide enough technological potential. Thank you for your time and I strongly urge a Con ballot.
The United States has the highest national potential than any other country...

(By highest potential, I mean we have had the most opportunity for success... Our country has more agricultural land than any other, but we only use about 44% of it. If we utilized all of our power, we could rise above all other nations, and we definitely would not be in this recession.) I honestly believe that the U.S. has a very high potential. In our lands, we have just about every single climate you can think of, just about every culture and ethnics group you can think of, plus we have been lucky enough to start late enough to learn from other great nations. If you (for some reason) disagree, or you just want to extra-agree with me, accept it. Do it.
Young Americans should be required to spend at least one year in public service.

Thank you Con. I disagree with your points and will provide my arguments. This is not a matter of personal freedom. It is a matter of societal give and take. We are part of a generation that is almost renowned for its laziness and poor education. In a working society the citizens give a little, as in, goods/services, and contribute a tax, and in compensation, the society looks after it's citizens and provides them with services. When you get a society that has 1.76 Million out of school in primary grades, you get serious effects. In comparison, Japan has 4121 out of primary. Keeping with the Japan comparison, the average schooling duration is 9.5 years. For America, it is 12 years, and yet, despite this it ranks 11th globally for educational scores, while Japan ranks fourth, the highest of the major countries. What's the difference? Japanese society celebrates hard work and a hard working lifestyle, while the US celebrates ideological ideas like "freedom", which, of course, isn't freedom at all. It's laziness. Why does America, the supposed leader of the world, sit at fourth place in per capita GDP spent on welfare, by far the highest of the worlds leading nations?We need to be introducing a hard-working nature back into the American workplace, and I say a year in public service will be a step in the right direction. In Canada it is mandatory to commit 30 hours to volunteer work. It should be integrated into the education system. http://www.nationmaster.com...
Young Americans should be required to spend at least one year in public service.

It is completely unreasonable to have young Americans complete such a task because if America is built of a single word: FREEDOM, then why are we not allowing the future of America choose whether or not to go into the field of public service for a year. It would not be freedom if we, the government, MAKE the young do this responsibility. According to Google, freedom means the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Although, young Americans are not legal or full-time contributing members of our society, they soon will be. If we start to restrict their freedom now, the freedom they will inhabit later in life will jeopardize their faith of their government and that is the last thing America needs.
Internet users should have to disclose their identity, assuming it were possible.

While there are arguable some benefits to the idea of transparency on the internet, the moral and practical harms this could cause mean that the anonymity the internet provides must be upheld. The main reasons for this are that it contradicts with the key principle of privacy, and that people don't just want anonymity for bad reasons. Firstly, lets consider why privacy and anonymity are important. Privacy stems from the key principle that people should be allowed to do anything, provided it doesn't affect others. Now your average person isn't necessary trying to use internet anonymity for bad reasons, but would prefer that their real name wasn't attached to what they do. This is their personal preference for their own comfort, and as it isn't harming anyone else, they should be allowed to keep it. If everyone on the internet knew the real identities of everyone else on the internet, people would feel less comfortable acting online if their real name was attached, because even if they do nothing wrong their real identities can be traced, which can in itself lead to undesirable consequences such as stalking or targeting of these individuals both online and offline. As such, basic privacy and anonymity for the average user is not an issue, and would in fact be more harmful if it was withdrawn, so internet anonymity should remain. Secondly, people who deliberately try to act anonymously do not always do so for bad reasons. Its very easy to argue that all these people are terrorists, sneaking around invisibly, but this really isn't the case. What about people that are doing things where their identity should seriously remain anonymous? Activities ranging from pornography to suicide prevention hinge upon the user's real identity not being disclosed, but harm the users who are exposed with no benefit to any other party. Because of both of the above reasons, internet anonymity not only does no harm for the vast majority, but can actually hurt even more when it is taken away. As a result, internet identities must not be disclosed.
The TSA Needs to be Reformed

The TSA should be reformed. They have a liquids rule that only allows you to take a maximum of 3.4 fluid ounces onto a plane. That is ridiculous! Then they charge you a few dollars for a bottle of water. You could buy a gallon of milk with that money! There have even been lawsuits because of the prices of bottled water being insane. According to the Wall Street Journal, a 20-ounce water bottle costs less than a dollar at convenience stores, but can cost up to five dollars at the JFK and Seattle-Tacoma International airports. How is this fair? How is this logical?Anyway, what if someone were to somehow sneak a weapon onto a plane? The Transportation Security Administration states that not even airplane staff are allowed to carry weapons. So, does that mean that everybody is just supposed to get killed by the one lunatic that has the weapon? I sure hope not.
All in all, I'm just another brick in the wall

Whoa-oo-oo-oa![1] So I open the door to my enemies . . . but they tell me to please go f**k myself? You know you just can't win.[2] In all my years of judging I have never seen before someone more deserving of the full penalty of law.[3] There is no other day.[4] The time is gone.[5] All in all, you're just another brick in the wall.[6] [1] The Great Gig In The Sky [2] Lost For Words [3] The Trial [4] See Emily Play [5] Time [6] Another Brick In The Wall, Part 2
All in all, I'm just another brick in the wall

You gotta be crazy.[1] Find me where I'm[2] up against the wall.[3] I like to be here when I can.[4] Is this not what you expected to see?[5] Where were you when I was burned and broken?[6] Just a brick in the wall,[7] driven on by a heart of stone.[8] The evidence before the court is incontrovertible.[9] [1] Dogs [2] Julia Dream [3] In The Flesh [4] Breathe (Reprise) [5] In The Flesh? [6] Coming Back To Life [7] Another Brick In The Wall, Part 1 [8] On The Turning Away. [9] The Trial
All in all, I'm just another brick in the wall

Witness the man who raves at the wall.[1] I've got second sight, got amazing powers of observation.[2] You little s**t, you're in it now.[3] All in all, you're just another brick in the wall.[4] [1] Set The Controls For The Heart Of The Sun [2] Nobody Home [3] The Trial [4] Another Brick In The Wall, Part II
lit. Bestiality rematch

alright, so to start off my opponent argues against my point about the harming affects to real world animals basically by saying, "yea but that doesn't count because they're real and we're talking written." Here's the problem with that, we're talking about whether literary bestiality is wrong or not, so therefore we need to look at the effects. Written animals can't get hurt, real animals can. To put it straight, my opponent seems like he/she is very fond of animals; an animal lover, just maybe not in the form of bestiality. Anyone who loves animals should be offended by any type of bestiality, written or real because it harms real animals.. My opponent also states that I should define 'closely related' and is right to point that out. What I mean by closely related is that we are part of the same evolutionary line, specifically the same genus. All of the other species in the "homo" genus are extinct. horses are a part of the same genus as donkeys and zebras; wolfs are in the same genus as dogs and so on. My opponent seems to ignore my point about love not being a singularly human trait, and he also seems to think loyalty is as well. the only singularly human trait is really our level of intelligence. However, next my opponent brings up a good point, http://3.bp.blogspot.com... this is the type of things that happen to our animals, humans treating them like this. Whatever would cause something lie this is wrong. We should be working to reduce these sort of things in the world, not empowering them. Sexual abuse of an animal is a terrible atrocity to commit, we should stop it. Lastly my opponent states that animals can say no through their actions. this is simply not true, as I have said before, things like love and loyalty are not singularly human traits; intelligence is. The ability to give consent comes with intelligence. in fact the first instinct of a female dog or cat when sexually advanced upon is to fight, because if the male isn't strong enough to impregnate her while she fights him, then she doesn't want to have his babies. A person who molests his animals is likely to know this and will just think its normal response Make note, my opponent didn't address the fact that literary bestiality involving a no means no theme would be extremely limited. My opponent also conceded to the fact that reading this literary bestiality causes real world action, then that it also harms animals in the real world. I look forward to hearing from my opponent in round 3
lit. Bestiality rematch

This debate is about the literature itself, not the acts or, what the literature may or may not cause. also you need to define closely related, humans are 82% genetically simillar to dogs, 90% simillar to cats and 98% similar to chimps, so where is the line drawn. Also, I never said that they act like humans, I stated that they can be more humanthen humans because many times humans act like demons toward eachother and their fellow creatures. in reality, dogs have unflinchingly sacrificed themself for a person that has abused them and this is what we do to our animals http://3.bp.blogspot.com... http://www.fanpop.com... In responce to the statement that an animal cant say no, I have to disagree, an animal can say no with there actions such as growling, hissing, ect. http://www.eupedia.com...
lit. Bestiality rematch

Well, with a forfeited round there's nothing left to say here in this debate. .. in my arguments I proved that what you read effects how you act and that bestiality in literature causes animal abuse in real life. .. M opponent conceded to these points. .. .. The one thing my opponent seems to disagrees with in this line of reasoning is that because of this, the literature is wrong. .. . and as my opponent is someone who loves animals in the traditional sense, it should be blatantly obvious that things causing animal cruelty are wrong. My opponent argues that it isn't animal cruelty because animals are more human than humans sometimes. .. .. My argument is that this wouldn't justify animal cruelty and trying to mistake it for inter-species love. As well animals aren't more human than us. .. . sometimes they are more compassionate and loving. .. but these aren't singularly human traits. .. .
lit. Bestiality rematch

Apology accepted, but to get back to the debate.... My opponent tries to provide a definition late in the debate of 'human'.... This definition is actually just a list of traits, and in fact it is a very redundant list of traits as it can be boiled down to basically compassionate, loyal, and loving..... these three, and the rest of the traits in the list are not singularly human.... so stating that this is what human is, and then to try to say that animals act more human than us humans do sometimes, is wrong...... Yes it is true that many times animals are more loyal, loving, and compassionate. This does not mean that they are more human, and it certainly doesn't mean anything in this debate.... Is the fact that animals can be more loving than humans a justification for the two species to mate... It certainly is not, there is no connection here. The only trait that is singularly human is our level of intelligence, and these animals do not have that. As none of my contentions were attacked, extend them to this round as well. I look forward to the final round.
lit. Bestiality rematch

First, My deepest apologies to ProgressiveSlayer, I misread his statement about being an animal lover to say ". . . An animal lover, but not the same way as everybody else" or something of that nature, I am honestly not the kind of person to intentionally slander a person's reputation when it is not deserved. I am a strong believer in "thou shall not bear false witness." If I could take back what I said, I wouAgain my deepest apologies. Secondly, a definition that should have been given a long time ago. Human: compassionate, caring, sympathetic, empathetic, forgiving, loving, loyal, selfless, acting in a humane manner, merciful. Often times, humans act very inhuman toward each other and our fellow creatures devaluing ourselves. Sorry, that is all I have time to write, I will be back next round
lit. Bestiality rematch

Note, I did not call my opponent a 'zoophile'... I stated that my opponent seems to be very fond of animals... Even to make sure my opponent didn't misinterpret what I said I wrote down "not in the form of bestiality"...... This is a petty attempt to take this debate off focus as m opponent says "I refuse to respond to this set of arguments"... extend all of my arguments to this round, as none of them have been addressed and do not include a single instance where I call my opponent a 'zoophile'.
Barack Obama

I understand where you are coming from when you say we are still in Iraq, but we tried to leave a few years ago after extensively training their troops to be able to defend themselves. When we left though, their army quite frankly were cowards and surrendered to what was at the time a small group of people from ISIS. Also, every person who runs for president makes promises that they cannot keep. It is how you get elected. Every president who has ever run was that way and it will continue to be that way forever.
The AAF is better than the NFL

"Firstly, Unless if you are a die hard Patriots or a Rams fan, You have to agree that the NFL"s referees show favoritism. " Now a lot of people seem to think that refs or the NFL would favor the Patriots but it makes no sense. Why would the NFL favor a team that makes the playoffs every year? The AAF is still an early league and refs haven't had time to show favoritism. The AAF does have the replay system but only got it because the NFL recommended that they should. The NFL is coming up with a system for that. Extra Points has been a system of football since the very beginning. Having two options available for extra points help teams more than just going for 2. No kick off extra-point or drop kick or anything like that. The two-point makes the touchdown unrewarding if missed. Also making a field goal is not guaranteed, Especially nowadays when 2 games were decided by a kick. Kickoffs are not useless and has been part of the game since the beginning. Why should we remove that? Starting at the 25-yard line will likely not have an effect on injuries. The AAF is set up to fail. Tom Dundun, Owner of the Carolina Hurricanes has made up a 250 million dollar financial bailout.
The AAF is better than the NFL

While the NFL is more popular than the AAF, You have to take popularity out of the situation. It"s possible for something to be less popular than something else, But be better. Firstly, Unless if you are a die hard Patriots or a Rams fan, You have to agree that the NFL"s referees show favoritism. Usually it"s towards the Patriots, But the Rams were also helped out by the men in stripes in the 2019 NFC Championship Game. An easy pass interference call was missed just so the Rams could make it to the Super Bowl. And the line judge that made the awful call? They were a former Rams player. Next, It"s happened every year. The refs helping the Patriots win. The NFL has lost a lot of fans from god awful calls, And commissioner Roger Goeddel does nothing about it. The AAF is different. While I don"t know what the future holds in the league, I haven"t seen any favoritism shown by refs. Also, If the refs make a bad pass interference call, A judge separate from the referees can overturn calls, Making the game more enjoyable to watch. Secondly they did away with extra points. While they aren"t taken for granted, It"s basically automatic now in the NFL. Making teams go for 2 makes it more exciting because the points after could help your team win, Or cost them the game. There"s also no kickoffs but kickoffs are somewhat useless anyway, But starting from the 25 every time is also boring. But, At least it reduces injuries.
The AAF is better than the NFL

I"m round 2 you said, "The AAF does have the replay system but only got it because the NFL recommended that they should. " Then in round 3 you said: "Sky judges were influenced by the no call in the NFL game. " So basically you said in round 2 that the NFL said, "Hey AAF! You should have a sky judge! " And then in Round 3 you basically meant that because of the call, The AAF has a sky judge. While I do enjoy watching kickoffs, They do cause a lot of injuries, The type of injuries being concussions. What the AAF could of done instead was to keep kickoffs, But make it safer to reduce concussions. Also yes, Referees are humans, And humans make mistakes, But It is still a wrong call. Referees being human can"t always be an excuse. If you were to watch an NFL game, Would you rather A. See a bad pass interference call by the referee, And nothing is done, Or B. See a bad pass interference call by the referee, And have a sky judge overturn the call and make it right? Also while it makes no impact on my argument, I"m a Redskins fan
The AAF is better than the NFL

I guess we won"t have rules to this debate, I guess that"s ok To start, There really is not any actual reason that has been found for why the refs help the Patriots, But it is obvious. . If you were to watch replays of the 2018 AFC Championship and the 2019 AFC Championship, You would see horrible calls where the refs obviously were calling in favor of the Patriots. Also while it isn"t garunteed, One reason a lot of people think the NFL favorites the Patriots is because they wanted Tom Brady to earn his 6th Super Bowl ring. I don"t think that"s the reason personally but that"s just my opinion. Also, While I do agree with you about the AAF starting out as an early league, They have been a league for more than one month now, And one month isn"t as short as you think it is. Secondly, The NFL has nothing to do with the AAF, And they NFL never suggested that the AAF should have a sky judge. If they did, The NFL would have a sky judge of their own, And I haven"t seen anywhere online where they talk about the NFL getting sky judges, Except for random people saying that the NFL should have one. Thirdly, My opinion on extra points is well, An opinion. Some people like them, Some find it boring, I find extra points boring, But everyone has their own opinion. Also if two games were decided by an extra point, And there are 256 NFL games in a season, That means 1 in 128 games were decided by a kick. That is less than 1% of games. Lastly, Kickoffs still cause injuries. I remember reading a Sports Illustraded Kids magazine years ago, Saying if they should take kickoffs out of the game. I still remember what if said: "Believe it or not, Kickoffs are one of the top caused of injuries in the NFL. " The AAF realized this and that"s also a reason the AAF doesn"t do kickoffs. Also, Even though kickoffs have been in the game for a long time, And that they may be fun to watch, Safety does come first and it isn"t as fun seeing a player from either side rolling on the ground injured. (Unless if it"s Brady XD) But still I have a point