BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pope John Paul II was a great man. His philosophy and political thought was right on the money.

I wish to start out my opening argument by saying that in history you rarely come across a person who is skilled at both spirituality and politics. People often assume that to be religious you have to be a "softy" or to be in politics you need to be "cold". JPII showed us that neither assumption is true. He was a man of immense kindness and mercy, having traveled to almost every nation and culture on earth during his reign as Supreme Pontiff, he was able to reach out to people in ways no other person could. He is also responsible for upholding church doctrine, refusing to give into pressure. In terms of politics he was a shrewd diplomat and was a powerful contributor to ending the Communist regime of The Soviet Union. He is still regarded in Poland as a hero, not just because he was the first Polish Pope, but because he was instrumental in ending the brutal oppression of Atheistic Communism in that country. He rightly deserves the title, "John Paul the Great" and he is a Saint of our time.
Parties shouldnt exist

Oh i see were on the same side here lol. Im not arguing go independent. Im saying do away with parties, Or at least idea. I thinks its going to die out the more peopl realize the party is irrelevant compared to the message behind the political rep. We dont need sides on the ballots just names and plans. It may force avg americans to get more involved not being able to say, Ill vote demo or repub. The question is you vote for who and why? At that point
Parties shouldnt exist

Well, I agree that they diiffer and agree on certain situations. However, Most representatives in congress are not for the people, They are pushing their own personal agenda. U. S. Citizens are able to determine views by choosing to vote independent. Theree are two senators who classify as independent; Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine. Bernice ran as a democreat in the 2016 caucuses, And Angus King leans toward the Democrats on issues. My question is why even run independent?
Parties shouldnt exist

Yes that would be the oppoaong view to what i said, But how? I argue that, Democrats and republicans in some cases differ and in some cases are the same. With a 2 party system you tend to side with a person on economic but not social issues, Or immigration and national security but not their gun policies. If each indivual thought independently and each rep campaigned based on how their plan benefits the masses and not just a party, We would see more genuine positive change.
Evolution is a fact

Maybe you can't read. Maybe you can't follow instructionsMaybe you just forgot, but The rules said "First round is for acceptance only"So, I can just stop here and call it a win, which I would have done if this was a voting debate, ORI can ignore everything you wrote and pretend you didn't write it. If you are OK with that I'll move on and START the debate. Ever since Darwin came up with the idea that species evolved, science has been trying to prove him wrong. Over 100 years later and thousands of experiments later, science has failed to prove Darwin wrong. Everything they tried actually confirms evolution as a fact. (They = qualified scientists). http://youtu.be...With DNA alone. you can take any two species that exist and trace them back to the common ancestor they evolved from. The fossil record only confirms the DNA evidence. Using several forms of radiometric dating that all converge on the same results, every fossil ever found fits into the tree of evolution exactly where it would be expected to fit. All it would take to disprove evolution, would be to find just one fossil that didn't belong where the theory says it should go. It's also important to realize that a scientific theory is not the same as non-scientific theory. When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. . http://www.livescience.com...I
Evolution is a fact

You seriously don't have a clue about how science works.Science is only as good as the evidence it has. It will come as close to the truth as possible using the available evidence.As new evidence comes about, science comes closer to the real answers.With Heliocentrism, science came as close as possible to the right answer with the evidence it had. Now that we have better telescopes, we have better evidence and better answers to how the solar system works.1. Humans and monkeys do have a common ancestor. As a matter of fact, you can take any two species and trace them back to a common ancestor. That's how you can prove evolution is a fact. You don't need any fossils to prove evolution.The "probable" form doesn't matter. We know it's DNA structure. 2. Fruit flies have evolved into separate species in laboratories. http://talkorigins.org...Plus, you don't have to observe something to know it's true. The former planet Pluto takes 248 years to orbit the Sun. We know that as fact, but nobody has ever seen it happen, since we haven't even known about Pluto for that long. 3. "It's just a theory" http://talkorigins.org...Gravity is also a theory...want to try jumping out a 20 story window? Hmmm...it must also be a fact!You ask "If we could evolve, couldn't we just get rid of these things years ago? That's not how evolution works.I'll tell you what....no matter what "evidence" you have for evolution being "wrong" There is an explanation for it on this website:http://talkorigins.org...If you can find something (real evidence) that isn't explained on that website, please let me know. You'll win a Nobel Prize for sure if you can prove evolution wrong.
Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised

It has been drawn to my attention in another debate that my practice of calling my opponent by his username could be construed as a personal attack. I am very sorry if this indeed has been the case, and apologise profusely for any offence that may have been taken. I hope that both he, and everyone else reading this, will read this not as any attempt of ill-will or malice on my part, but only as an indication of my relative inexperience here on debate. org. Nonetheless, my opponent has forfeited this round, and accordingly still not dealt with the re-affirmation of my arguments, or my rebuttals against his arguments. My points therefore still stand, and I win this debate.
Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised

I was looking forward to reading Con's speech, and am definitely looking to refute his arguments. The Con states, while refuting my contention that TruTV was set up for this purpose. If it was for this purpose, then wouldn't the television station still be showing court trials, etc. While researching the history of TruTV, or CourtTV, it stated that it now has transformed into a station which shows "caught on tape" videos; almost abolishing publicly broadcasted court trials and procedures. The Con states that he does agree with my second contention. But he states that it wouldn't change my proposal. I strongly disagree with the statement that Con has provided. If court trials, etc haven't been on television for some amount of years... how is one to know that people may not want to watch broadcasts of murder trials, or trials that may affect many. I can assure you that many people would have liked to be in the know as to what occurred for Bernie Madoff's embezzlement trial, or even in the trials and court sessions for those who were held accountable for the disastrous September 11th attacks. The con also states that the information to be broadcasted will not be useful to anyone. I am not stating that every single United States citizen should is required to watch it. If Bernie Madoff's trial was on television, I can assure you that 99% of the people would know what he is in court for and on trial for. And to refute the refutation made by Con for the lawyers and on lawyers gaining access publicly to see court procedures; I am stating that they should watch it because over time, the judicial system changes, procedures change, and it's imperative that they are aware of the change and how to use if effectively in their career and/or future career. If they don't see and learn about changes in our judicial system, is it preparing them for when they graduate law school or when they go to another trial? No. And Con asks how much preparation these lawyers and law students need. I'm sure if you were in a lawsuit fighting for your money, house, etc, that you would want the most educated person to be representing you. Why? So they don't "mess up" any of the court process. Con also stated that it is already difficult to convince witnesses and victims to testify for a variety of reasons, from sensitivity to active or indirect intimidation. I completely agree with that. But, that is why the U.S. Marshalls in our country have started the Witness Protection Program. The U.S. Marshals Service provides for the security, health and safety of government witnesses, and their immediate dependents, whose lives are in danger as a result of their testimony against drug traffickers, terrorists, organized crime members and other major criminals. Based on the reasons and rebuttal I have provided, I would like to state that the opinion made by the Con that my proposition fails.. is in fact, void. Thank you. Source (1) http://www.usmarshals.gov...
Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised

Thank you, Logician. Let's begin. I would like to first define a term that is used in the resolve, as edited by Logician. Publically, as defined by the Princeton University Dictionary is in a manner accessible to or observable by the public; openly. My first contention is that placing cameras in court will improve public confidence in the judiciary and the system of justice as a whole. It is difficult to see how the public can have confidence in a system that most of them never see! The judiciary often appears to be a secretive and closed club, open to those involved. The occasional clumsy comments that are made by judges are ridiculed in the media. It is necessary to dispel this unrepresentative image by showing the competence, efficiency, and sensitivity of the majority of judges throughout the legal system. Judges have made efforts to improve their public profile in recent years. My second contention is that in a democratic society, people have a right of access to courts. Anyone can sit in the public gallery and watch a part or the whole of a trial, or appeal. In Britain, the public is even allowed to attend the highest court in the land, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, just as anyone can watch the Supreme Court of the United States in session. There is therefore no constitutional reason why trials should not be televised, if they can be publically viewed. However, at the moment only a few people can take advantage of their rights. As courts sit during the week, it is difficult for people in full-time employment to watch a trial. Travelling to courts across the country is costly. The galleries for the public have only a limited number of spaces. Visitors to well- publicised trials often have to arrive several hours in advance of the hearing in order to ensure a seat. We as the american people, whom created this government, should not have to make such sacrifices of time and money in order to enjoy our democratic rights of which we created. In addition, the events in court are often difficult for non-lawyers to understand. Coverage on television could include a commentary that would make watching a trial a more profitable and educational experience. For those in law school, they can't learn off of old videos, or wing it like Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny. They need to see the current process of court procedures and what it takes to become a part of this system. In the age of the television, and even the internet, we should utilise modern technology to enhance the rights of the citizens. Sources (1) http://amsir.home.isp-direct.com... (2) http://www.allacademic.com... (3) http://www.trutv.com...
Intel is better than AMD

Hey TheProfessor I look forward to having a great debate with you! Let's get to it. I don't think anyone can deny that Intel currently has higher performing CPU's than AMD. There are plenty of benchmarks out there proving this. Though, one thing you brought up makes a strong case for AMD in the middle range of CPU's. AMD is no longer trying to compete with Intel's high end and have chosen to focus on the upper-middle to low end CPU's. As you can see in this chart referencing price/performance ratio . All of the AMD processors at the top of the chart are from this current generation while none of the Intel CPU's near the top are from any time recent (With the Celeron G530 released in 2011). When you buy an AMD CPU you are squeezing the most CPU performance out of your money. If you want to go really high end then you go Intel, simple as that.
Intel is better than AMD

Ok, first of all, before all the Intel/AMD fanboys come crashing in here, let me get things straight. This isn't about smashing your heads in and making pointless arguments. There are some common facts we can all agree on: 1. AMD CPU's run hotter than Intel 2. Intel's top end CPU's are more powerful in single/multithreaded applications 3. AMD's CPU's have a better price/performance value This debate should only be based on TODAYS CPU's not whose CPU was more powerful in 1980, neither about upcoming prototypes. I belive Intel is better than AMD in the performance section because, even though they are quite expensive, perform better when running both multithreaded and single threaded applications. Also, the power consumption (stock clock) compared to AMD CPU'S.
Women being combatantsin the U.S. Armed Forces

I understand my opponents point of view however, there is more to being a combatant that being a POW. Although the job for being a combatant is known, there is no way to train women for pyscological harms. Another point of why they should not that I would like to pronounce is that the privacy of women, while deployed, is next to none. Women are believed to not be good combatants, due to moral and fear of women becoming POWs. Women should not be combatants because if a woman is captured she can be subjected to a series of sexual assaults such as rape and molestation. Another reason that women should not be combatants is because of the thought process of men fighting alongside the women. The male brain is "wired" to where if a female was shot, the men would abort the mission to go help that one soldier thus putting many lives in danger. If worse were to happen to the females, such as death, the men would be filled with rage/sorrow and act upon their own actions. This would then cause dysfunction in the unit and that would put even more lives in jeopardy. In other situations, the men would be demoralized as they relive the horror of a woman combatant being shot or killed. Men have an instinct to try to protect the women at any means necessary. Men will do stupid things in order to defend a woman that they see in danger. For example, if a woman was shot in the leg and was downed about 50 yards away from the rest of the men, the men will charge through hailstorms of bullets trying to help her. This would cause a bigger situation and a much harder environment for the men to react. The new "nondiscrimination" law would affect all military branches and communities, including Army and Marine infantry, special operations, Navy SEALs, and submarines. Unlike workers who return home at night, military personnel must accept living conditions that involve "forced intimacy," with little or no privacy. This would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to share private quarters with men—a situation that would be unacceptable to the majority of military women even if misconduct never occurred. Stated in gender-neutral terms, the new law would require military persons to accept exposure to persons who may be sexually attracted to them (Elaine Donnelly). This could state that a woman would have to share a barrack with a male that may or may not be attracted to her in which case they would be exposed to each other some of the time. I await a response.
Women being combatantsin the U.S. Armed Forces

Women can be combatants in the US Armed Force, because join a force or not is a personal decision, women should have the same amount of rights to make decisions as men do. When deciding to join the army, women themselves will know what the consequences are, so even if the amount of torture and other psychological harms for female is exceedingly greater than that of a male POW, a woman can still be willing to serve her country. The amount of torture and other psychological harms that a woman may get after she becomes a POW shouldn't stop her making decisions by her own.
Women being combatantsin the U.S. Armed Forces

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, this is my last argument. I need to clear up some misunderstanding of my opponent first. "As my opponent has misperceived, I was not stating that a woman should not be in the army. I was stating that they should not be combatants." My rebuttal: When I am in the army, it meant join the army and become combatants. The debate can be summarized in 2 sentences: Opposition: "I understand that it is impossible for people to be trained for tortures such as those, but the tortures that can be done to a woman is significantly greater than that of a man." Proposition: "Again, this is a personal choice if woman decide to be a combatant and suffer from the consequences or not." Please, vote proposition, because of the following reasons: 1) Women should have the same rights as men, so they should be allowed to enter the army. 2) Women should be able to join the army according to their own will, although there may be bad consequences. But if those consequences are acceptable for them, it will be okay. 3) Men can also suffer from forced sexual behavior after they become POW, or feel awkward while having "Forced Intimacy" with another man. So it's the consequences of being a POW or "forced intimacy" can be suffered by both sexes, women are not the only gender that can be suffered from it. Women may suffer more, that's what my opponent is explaining through the whole debate, but if woman herself found it okay to take those consequences and sacrifice for the nation, it's definitely fine. It doesn't make any sense to decide not to let women be a combatant just because you think they may not want to suffer from the consequences. Voters, please remember: opposition is trying to take away women's rights by deciding for woman about what they want. Which means, even if a woman is okay with suffering from being a POW, and okay with forced intimacy, will still not be able to become a combatant just because my opponent believe that it's too much for women to suffer, I believe that women can make up their own mind and decide how much they can suffer. Let women behold their own rights, and decided for them, if they want to sacrifice and contribute for their own nation, their mother land! And let woman decide, if they want to have the same rights as men, and contribute same amount of love for the nation consisted of both women and men! Thank you very much for reading this debate!
Women being combatantsin the U.S. Armed Forces

As my oppenent has mispercieved, I was not stating that a woman should not be in the army. I was stating that they should not be combatants. I understand that it is impossible for people to be trained for tortures such as those, but the tortures thatcan be done to a woman is significantly greater than that of a man. 1) "assuming that all male are emotional and will be unrational and put many lives in danger while fighting alongside the women, or suffer from greater pain after the the death of woman than after the death of man" Men have been known to go out of their way to help a woman that is hurt, it is taught in the US that a man must not hit a woman but instead protect one. This can be found outside of the military as well. If a woman were to die and the male had seen this, he would act irrational and show behavior that he wouldnt show otherwise. In Boot Camp and while overseas, you are required to know your team, squad, platoon, and everyone else inside the unit. You must know whose gaurding your back and whose back your guarding. While getting to know your people, you will most likely become great friends with them. 2)" So it's the consequences of being an POW or "forced intimacy" can be suffered by both sexes, women are not the only gender that can be suffered from it." This is true that a man can also suffer from this, but a woman is usually more protective of her sexual parts. Something that can not happen to a man is that a woman can get pregnant and while a POW can get pregnant and then be tortured and suffer a miscarriage. As for forced intimacy, a male is not going to be attracted to another male (unless gay) but a male can easily be attracted to a woman. Adding on to this, when a soldier is deployed they can get lonely really fast. This could cause some sexual tensions between the males and the females resulting in possibly intercourse. The last point I would like to bring up is a womans period. When a woman experiences her period, her behavior is diffrent than their regular behavior which may result in irrational behavior and cause a woman to go outside of orders which will put not only her life in danger, but everyone elses lives as well.