BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pathfinder vs Pazio is far better then Dungeons and Dragons by WOC

Wow. I posted this as a bet, I didn`t expect anyone to seriously take me up on it. Thank you though. My friend, wo argues DND is excited to see if your complaints an debate will be similar to his. Heres hoping not. As to the debate Pathfinder is far better for a variety of reasons 1) Art. The art work raised the bar to a professional level that was unseen. Untill Pathfinder the only art that stood out was on there covers. each Pazio book is a art book unto itself. 2) Different based XP. The xp levels for different paces was totally a pazio idea that allows for slow growth to high adventure. 3) No dead levels, every level matter and is growing step where in DND some levels are just place holders. 4) Character customization and option is far more easily to follow, additional classes and skill sets, like the thief knife fighter or Airbender Cleric. Not everything was generic and builds allowed more freedom and creation without a thousand books to buy. 5) Skills have been simplified and expanded, allowing more skills to be more valued. (weak argument as it depends on DM, but the emphasis was and is there) 6) Combat manovers, feats and additional powers made martial classes more desirable at advance levels other then a buffer till spell classes could nuke everything. 7) Encounter levels are far more reasonable, and true to CR rating then DND (though i admit there is the odd one, its a far more STABLE system over all, though def needs work) 8) No towershield shenanigans. Items, powers and unbalanced things get addressed right away. 9) Cost, PDFs and book are works of art and some are worth the cost of art alone (if you value things like that). 10) Wizards of the Cost keep coming out with versions, which implies that its broke and needs fixing or its a money grab on the customers. 11) I can see what magical items look like and describe them an appreciate them.
Pathfinder vs Pazio is far better then Dungeons and Dragons by WOC

The argument is simple. I am for Pathfinder, you are for Dungeons and Dragons. Which is better game. Round 1 is to Accept. Round 2 Argument for your position Round 3 Rebuttals an additional arguments Round 4 Summery (no new arguments) You are confined to 3 outside links beside the company's actual website per round. you may reference any book published by the company for reference. it is assumed based off argument that we have all moduals, codex and additional books. Failure to follow rules forfeits the argument.
Abortion should be illegal

I'm doing another abortion debate, this time with some more refined and clearer arguments.Full resolution'Induced abortion should be illegal in the United States of America (or a similar Western state) in all cases except from cases where it is performed in order to save the life of the mother from death or serious physical injury'I will be PRO on this issue, whereas my opponent will be CON. The burden of proof will be shared, with myself having to provide sufficient reason for the US to prohibit abortion and my opponent also having to provide sufficient reason for the US to permit abortion.DefinitionsAbortion: 'Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus' (1)Illegal: 'Prohibited by law.' (2)Rules1. No trolling2. No kritiks (e.g anarchism)3. No ad hominem (personal) attacks4. No new arguments may be made in Con's round 4StructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Opening argumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: Final rebuttals and closing remarks. (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the United States of America

And that's her, folks. Con concedes the debate and all of my arguments flow to me unopposed. There is absolutely no reason to grant Con any points in the debate, and if you do you're an intellectually dishonest scoundrel. Looking at you, middle school conservatives. No amount of pomade can slick your hair back enough to deny me my victory, even if you whip out your switchblade combs. Just remember kiddies, none of you have any new ideas and none of you are smarter than your elders. You will never add anything to a discussion and it's in your interests to not care about politics or philosophy until you have a fully developed brain, lest you succumb to the red menace or become so entrenched in your Bronze Age mysticism that you leave reality behind. One more pro-tip from the master herself: don't go picking fights with someone else's arsenal. Nothing more sure to sink you than to rely on something you don't know how to use, and in the case that you do know how to use it you're still better off going out on your own.http://www.youtube.com...
Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the United States of America

The United States of America is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation, founded on the principles of federalism, republican democracy, and individual liberty. Our founders had in mind a republic which would protect the rights of minorities, even against the pressure of the masses. It was this sentiment that allowed the Civil Rights Movement to end segregation and institutionalized racism, in spite of the majority opinion. It is this same sentiment that compels us into action against those who seek, yet again, to perpetuate civil inequality on the basis of ignorance.Marriage is the legal union between two romantically involved individuals, and because of the traditional understanding of romance and a bigoted attitude towards homosexuals, it was officially defined as the union between two individuals of opposite sex by the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Like all bigotry, this sentiment too has its roots in ignorance, and ignorance should never form the basis of government policy.As marriage is a civil right, this is a civil rights issue. In the cases of civil rights issues, it is not only irrational to consider temporal implications of policy, but unacceptable. It would not matter if the passage of same-sex marriage's legalization sparked a nuclear war; it is a fundamental duty of ours to recognize, uphold, and enshrine the civil rights of all men and women in this nation. Naturally, then, some increase in tax burden or a spike in divorce rates is not justification for the bigotry and ignorance inherent in the opposition.This topic is not a question of should, it is a matter of must.It falls to the opposition to establish that the denial of a fundamental civil right such as marriage can be justified. It falls to the opposition to establish that their bigotry and ignorance are acceptable. It falls to the opposition to establish that America is a nation where freedoms should not be respected. It falls to the opposition to establish that institutionalized inequality is just.
Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the United States of America

I will not be trying to obfuscate meaning with this topic or in my responses, and I would encourage my opponent to present any questions they have about the meaning of the topic. Same-sex marriage is defined as marriage between two individuals of the same sex. United States of America constitutes all territory subject to the federal government of the United States (including territories and whatnot). Naturally, I'm pro (in favor of the resolution). Simple enough. One other thing. I'd prefer it if my opponent use the Trebuchet MS font at size 4 (14 pt) for his posts, because the default font is small and strains my eyes.
Democracy should be practised in all countries.

Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused. If the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been destroyed without outside intervention. Certain factors may increase the chance of success: for example imposing democracy on a nation with which there were once colonial relationships increases the expected lifespan of the democracy. Democratic transitions in general also tend to be more successful if economic conditions are better. Obviously we are not advocating imposing democracy on every country which does not have it, but if there are strong enough institutions and conditions, imposition can work and there have been past successes like Germany and Japan post WWII that show the worth of imposing democracy.
Democracy should be practised in all countries.

I don't necessarily think that a democratic approach is feasible for many countries. Take Egypt for example: they tried a to adopt democracy - only to end up worse then they started because so called "democratic-elected" leaders becoming overwhelmed with the power they were given and then turned into demagogues. Some countries aren't ready to adopt democracy. Say THEORETICALLY each nations was somehow coerced into adopting democracy. How are you sure that they will turn out like the "great democratic countries" such as the United States of America? One could argue that the USA is run by a wealthy ruling elite whose enforcement arm, the CIA, operates secretly and without accountability to any authority other than its elite masters. The US Congress and the US President are mere puppets of the ruling elite, and their purpose is to provide the public with an illusion or false facade of democracy. Anyways I want to hear what you have to say before I continue.
Walmart Stampede

My opponent recognizes the following Walmart hired absolutely no security for a crowd that was over the thousands. Again I would like to remind the voters that this isn't whether the persons involved should walk away scott free but whether Walmart shares part of the blame no matter how small. Essentially walmart does share part of the blame for not hiring even one security officer. I never mentioned the inherent ability of Walmart to look through a crystal ball and predict the future. However when a crowd becomes extreme (meaning in the thousands of people) and nothing is done to correct a situation, then I do believe Walmart is at fault. Should Walmart or any other store have to hire crowd control when there is indeed no crowd? No. Should McDonalds have to guard there stores from lunatics? No however if there are lunatics raving outside, making an attempt to lock the doors and call the police would be acceptable. Essentially walmart is partially to blame because there was a situation on their premises and they did absolutely nothing to fix it. Hiring a few security guards would have easily put the full of the blame on the crowd. However they made no such action and therefore should be held responsible. Voters do not be fooled into thinking this is a one way street this is whether Walmart should be PARTIALLY be held to blame and not fully. No one denies that the offending members of the crowd should be punished to the ABSOLUTE fullness. However I do not believe that WALMART should walk away SCOT FREE.
Walmart Stampede

Hey sadolite, how's it going? I hope we can have a meaningful debate and keep it polite. I wish you the best. In this debate I will be for walmart being sued. I am not against sueing any offenders that are caught, I simply believe walmart should be sued as well. In my opinion this has revealed the worst side of human nature. Reading this story was absolutely sickening. I pray that the families of the man and unborn child who died in this barbaric act of human savagery will be held in everyone's prayers. They sure will be in mine. Onto this debate. My opponent, by being opposed of Walmart being sued, is making the dubious claim that Walmart is simply not at fault to any degree. . http://www.youtube.com... As is shown in the MSNBC video, there was "thousands of shoppers" at the Walmart store. Not one security member was hired apart from Walmart employees who are not trained in crowd control. If my opponent has any knowledge of history, he would easily know that crowd control is essential to enstilling peace. Walmart had the knowledge of the size of the crowd outside. Hiring a few policemen for an hour of crowd control would have been an easy simple task that would have saved the lives of two men. Therefore Walmart, although they cannot be blamed for the entirity of this mess. Is responsible to a degree. Therefore they should be sued.
Walmart Stampede

I believe that every effort should be made using video surveillance to identify as many of the people involved in the ridiculous stampede and tragic death of that Walmart worker in Long Island. Walmart will of course be sued and held liable while all those responsible will walk away scott free with their peace of crap 25 dollar CD player and suffer no consequences for their actions. These people need to pay the family of this dead worker for their loss and they also need to be charged with manslaughter and thrown in jail. These people need to be made examples of so this never happens again. There is nothing that Walmart sells that is worth killing someone for. Just for the record, I never shop at walmart because just about everything they sell is made in Chinese sweat shops. But on this issue I have to take Walmarts side. I guarantee they will be sued and held liable while those responsible will walk away scott free.
Legalization of suicide

My opponent here has made quite an interesting proposal. Even though he has asked me to start with my arguments right away I would like to express the fact that I'm more interested to see the arguments he has to offer to support his stance and then afterwards, attenuate it. But anyhow I will kick of this debate with an argument of my own which supports my position on why suicides shouldn't be legalized. To start with, primarily, suicide is, in a way equal to murder, only that in this scenario the life in question is one's own. This might sound counter-intuitive at first glance but the question I'm posing is do we have the authority to take our own life? Life wasn't something that we created and it's origin or purpose is pretty unclear. In short, we don't technically own our life because we neither created it nor were reason behind it being created. Destroying something which we don't have any authority on is illegal. Suicide is destroying a life hence suicide is illegal. PRO in order to support his stance must prove that we DO HAVE the authority to take our own life by using rational arguments. I've made this round quite laconic seeing that my opponent hasn't made any arguments of his own. I'll be presenting the rest of my arguments which shall form the crux of my case in the upcoming rounds. Looking forward to an intellectual and invigorating debate. :)
I think 6th grade belongs in elementary school, Change my mind.

A condensed or organized version of this would be most helpful for me to respond to, For I feel it's rather difficult to digest the whole wall of text. Alas, I'll respond with what I haven't zoned out on. Just to be clear, I live on the big body of land to your east, Over up north in Canada. Perhaps this may lead to differences in the youth of both countries as is perceived, Yet I find it a good process to understanding the picture as a whole. From what I'm reading based on your argument, It appears that gorillas are perhaps more common in the warmer climates down south, As for Canada I have yet to encounter such differences. Additionally, Each generation of sixth graders, And the youth before them, Are often different than some predecessors while familiar to others. Some groups of sixth graders tend to gravitate away from the older grades here in Canada, Thus not causing much interaction really, While some of the less bright ones become enamoured by them. Perhaps biases did exist, Yet much of the things you mentioned occurring over in Hawaii happen on an incredibly smaller and local basis here up north. Mind you however, Many of the youth I encountered in middle school weren't perfect, But they weren't bonkers to an extent. The way I've come to see middle school is as a bridge to high school. Expectations may increase slightly in grade 6, But such is merely done as a gradual procession into high school. Elementary school prepares you (more or less on it's own) for middle school and such prepares you for high school and the courses within it. Even beyond middle school, There will consistently be peer pressure and many of those things. Due to such being consistently present much of the time, It's important to know of such and not give in to it. Even in adulthood, Such will exist but one can't divide the older from the young in order to shield them from it forever. Clearly, Our circumstances vary significantly. Yet, The purpose still stands in both cultures. Middle school, In it's essence, Stands as a bridge to high school. The people you may encounter within it may pester and annoy you, But I see it as a sort of obstacle course to make your way through. Often people will stand in your path, But it is one's duty to march on and progress through the various challenges of life. If you stumble, You regain your footing and rise up stronger. So, As such, I believe that the answer to the solution in regards to where 6th grade belongs is a matter of fluidity. Alas, At the same time, I stand by 6th grade being used along with other grades in middle school in many circumstances due to it's importance as a bridge between elementary and high school in the US, Canada, And elsewhere. I look forward to the opposition's comments.
Iran must be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Definitions. .. though the resolution is straight forward.1. Iran = Islamic Republic of Iran2. Prevented: keep from happening 3. Nuclear weapons: a weapon of mass destruction whose explosive power derives from a nuclear reactionRulesDrops are concessions, which includes individual pieces of evidenceForfeit = auto-lossNo new arguments or evidence in the last roundNo semantics*Rd. 1 is for acceptance, Rd. 2 is for argumentation.
School Vacation Homework should be banned

Con says: "My opponent is saying about homework in the lives of lazy children and teenagers. These are the ones who would feel very tensed. A good student who wishes that he should succeed in his life would never see the homework as a burden but would see them as a blessing." (Con assumes that only lazy people hate vacation homework and that they are the only ones stressed out about it and apparently all other students find it a blessing even though parents know this isn't the case in real life. Students who actually enjoy doing homework are a very small minority and even they are not guaranteed to have successful lives anyway.) Con also says: " In midst of these enjoyments it is a true fact that the vacation homework CAN PROVIDE RELAXATION among children. " (This statement is somewhat absurd due to the fact that most students will not feel relaxation from homework but would feel the opposite, stress and anxiety. if they do feel relaxed, it is the minority of the whole group.)
School Vacation Homework should be banned

My opponent is saying about homework in the lives of lazy children and teenagers. These are the ones who would feel very tensed. A good student who wishes that he should succeed in his life would never see the homework as a burden but would see them as a blessing. Also these homework are not taking your full holidays. The teachers are giving the vacation homework to revise what the children has studied. There should be some time left behind on each day to do these. You must not keep the whole things on the final day which can cause bad effects. So instead the children should do these vacation homework bit by bit and day by day. This would also make us feel nice and has only good effects on children. We know that most children are willing to enjoy the holidays. In midst of these enjoyments it is a true fact that the vacation homework can provide relaxation among children. Thus we can say that if we do these homework in a right way it is indeed good. These can help you to succeed.....
School Vacation Homework should be banned

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary: 1va·ca·tion- noun, often attributive \vā-G2;kā-shən, və-\ a period of time that a person spends away from home, school, or business usually in order to relax or travel Are children who are on vacation relaxing when they are doing school work on vacation days? My answer is probably not becuase they are stressing out over all the school work they are forced to do on the days that were meant for them to relax and have a good time. My argument is that students who want to enjoy their vacation should be able to without being forced to take on homework assignments against their free will. Studying should be optional and students can study without actually having to do assignments by reading materials that are taught in class. We all only have one childhood and it shouldnt be wasted.
School Vacation Homework should be banned

I don't agree with your statements. The homework that each student gets is for the well being of those children or teenagers. During the long holidays there is a chance for the children to forget everything that they have learnt. So if they have forgotten what is the benefit of this studies. This is where the vacation homework come in. With vacation homework the children are revising what they have studied again and again. This helps in the studies of those children. Just imagine what would happen if we ban these homework. As i have said above there is an easy chance for these children to forget what they have learnt. So in other words we can say that there is no benefit in studying. Studies determines what a man should become. So if you go on banning these vacation homework then those children would get almost no benefit in their studies. So i hope you understand my argument and hope you argue against it in the third round. I will show the sources in my last round in this debate.
Agnostics are atheists

I would like to finish this debate but I don't have the time. I shouldn't have set the response time at 24 hours. if you are agreeable, then I would like to create a new debate with identical settings except that the response time would be set to 48 hours. we could copy paste our rounds, and conclude the debate there. if you are not agreeable to this. or something similar, then I offer to forfeit.