BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

Greetings. I look forward to debating my opponent, zach12, in this fun debate tournament. "The term affirmative action refers to policies that take sex, race, or ethnicity into account in an attempt to promote equal opportunity." (Site: Wikipedia) Affirmative action provides fairness in college admissions. I affirm: colleges should indeed take into account in a beneficial manner the extent of diversity amongst a particular yield of applicants when determining its admittances. First, it produces a larger yield of diversity in the campus. More diversity means more opportunity for cultural interaction and learning of other ethnicities, promoting the educational environment. Second, it creates more equal opportunity for minorities and women in college admissions, fields as to which they are often underrepresented in society today. Third, in the case of extremely similar candidates vying for a specific spot in admission, affirmative action allows for colleges to favor diversity, while also generating an appealing candidate in other regards such as academics. I began by stating some initial claims. I reserve the right to add additional arguments as needed in the next round, as necessary. Thanks, and I look forward to this debate. Cheers, Oboeman.
Should teens eat less fast food? (redo)

Having something different than a triple decker chili bacon cheeseburgers at these said fast food places are options as well. Removing a large portion of fast food from general society is not needed. Encouraging the purchase of things like salads, chicken sandwiches without special sauces, things along those lines work just as well. Fast food can be unhealthy and costly, but it doesn't have to be. Burger King provides fresh salads made to order with ingredients that are fresh, and the ingredients are properly maintained. Burger King also provides a value menu that has items for less than 2 dollars an item with healthy sandwiches and meals like grilled chicken sandwiches, burgers without buns, crinkle cut fries which contain less fat and calories. They also provide drinks that contain no sugar like unsweet iced tea and Diet Coke. Sure, Fast Food is dangerous, but removing it completely FOR THE REASONS MY OPPONENT PRESENTS, is pointless. Maybe there are better reasons, but I do not believe my opponent presented good enough reasons Sources: employment at Burger King
Should teens eat less fast food? (redo)

Sorry the first debate was a typo. Now Teens should eat less fast food because of a couple of reasons, some of which I think you've noted in the last debate. First: Teens should eat less fast food because it increases the risk of unhealthy living, as shown in this link. http://www.jhsph.edu... Second: you're wasting you're money more than if you were buying groceries as said from How stuff works .com "You will actually spend less than opting for a convenient drive-through. And last but not least, because of not enough nutrients. as said from debate.org itself "has few in nutrients, too much fat, and high in calories". You're opponent Debater 98583
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Carrying a concealed weapon should not be legal. Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. If carrying a concealed weapon was legal, People wouldn't be able to know if someone was telling the truth when they said they had a weapon. This is dangerous because if the other person knew there was no weapon, They could run away. But if carrying a concealed weapon is legal they could never know for certain. People can still defend themselves if the weapon is not concealed.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

concealed carry is only legal in some places/states. It is concealed on their body, So people wouldn't know that they had it in the first place, And you can generally tell someone who is suspicious. "Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. " Concealed-carry holders are the most law-abiding group in the country. So much that they actually commit crimes 16% less than POLICE OFFICERS! This shows how law-abiding they are. They frequently go to ranges and safety classes and know how to properly operate and when to use their gun. So let me get your position straight: You think concealed-carry shouldn't be legal, But do you think owning a gun should be legal, Or what further procedures/restrictions/bans would you like on certain guns? Please explain your position.
Roblox Is Better Than Minecraft (Pro: Roblox; Con: Minecraft)

Agh, sorry, something had come up, so I was unable to continue the debate. Since this is the last round (and argument), I won't make an argument, because you're unable to make your rebuttals, so we'll have to end on argument #2."It looks a lot better and high-def, but you seem to be missing the point: Roblox's cobble just looks a whole lot better, in higher quality aspect and the actual look of it"Ah, in that case then yes, Roblox's cobble does indeed look better. My mistake."Also, THAT WAS NOT EVEN TROLLING IN THE VIDEO I LINKED."I agree - the reason I said trolling was because it was reffered to as such in the video title, and it was an easier way of reffering to it."Should of told that to this kid then before his place was ruined by some of your "'harmless'" trollers."I never said that all of our 'trollers' are harmless, I just said that there were more harmless 'trollers' than not.Besides, as claimed on the article, the 'trollers' used hacks, which, if you're intending to do a harmless troll, you really don't need to. If hacks are needed to troll someone, then more often than not it's a grief, or other kind of harmful 'troll'. "You ignored most of my arguments, so I'm just going to assume you agreed with them or had nothing to argue back on."In that case, you'd be correct, I ignored arguments because I agreed or had nothing to argue back on. Again, not going to start an argument, because there are no more rounds, so you wouldn't be able to make your rebuttals.Vote fairly of course, and if you (Pro) feel so inclined to, we can continue this debate.
Rap Battle #3

No me? Are you f***ing demented? Before Round 2 began your shot at victory ended, B*tch you are history, too many flaws to be mended, It aint no mystery; the streets are where' your a** will end at, I'm lackin' sympathy, I honestly could not have pretended, You're s*** to me, disgusting your birth was unintended, Your mother said sorry for having invented... You abysmal freak, you mad? Maybe you should not have surrendered.
The Minimum Wage

Unfortunately, my opponent has not offered an argument. I'll offer mine at this point which will obviously go unrefuted. Disclaimer: I am still playing Devil's Advocate. The minimum wage is a classic price floor. What it does is tell employers that they cannot pay below a certain wage. That is, it outlaws contracts between employers and employees and injects the government into the market. There isn't only an economic argument, which I'll get to, but a moral argument. What business does the government have imposing its will on individuals acting freely? Shouldn't people be free to do as they wish provided that they are not harming one another? Next is the economic argument. Because employers want to expand their businesses, for the most part, and employees are seeking the best possible positions for themselves--good wages, good benefits, opportunities for advancement, etc.--and thus there will be competition, not only for labor (from the employer's side) but for the jobs themselves (from the employee side). Not only are businesses in different positions as to whom they can actually hire--e.g., startups and mom-and-pop shops will need to spend sparingly on labor so that they can make investments in capacity--but employees are distinct in that they offer different skills. Those skills may be priced at by the market at, let's say, $8 per hour. If the minimum wage is $10.10, those people will be effectively shut out of the market. At the same time, they'll be competing with people with more skills than themselves. If employers have to spend $10.10, are they more likely to hire someone worth at least $10.10, or someone worth less? Obviously they want the best bang for their buck, so they're going to choose the employee worth $10.10. Therefore, the unskilled workers--we could even take this further and address whom this law would impact, though it's by no means exclusively these people: the youth, teenagers, college students, people without college degrees, etc. Why would we want to make it harder for people who are already struggling to find work? Finally, there's the basic microeconomic argument. The minimum wage, a price floor, could either be set below the equilibrium wage--in which case, it's irrelevant--or above the equilibrium wage. In this case, the quantity of labor supplied (people willing to work at this wage) would increase, while the quantity of labor demanded (people willing to hire at this wage) would decrease. These leads to a glut of labor, and is much more inefficient than if the market was setting wages itself. There's also empirical data on this front demonstrating job losses from minimum wage policies. For instance, the CBO estimated job losses from a $10.10 minimum wage would amount to about 500,000. Why would we want to do that amid an economic downturn?
The Minimum Wage

This debate will focus on the minimum wage. As Pro, I will argue in favor of it, whereas Con will argue against it. The winner of this debate will be the individual who proves his or her case with a preponderance of evidence. This means that both debaters possess an equal burden of proof.Round 1 will be for acceptance, Round 2 will be for opening arguments, Round 3 will be for rebuttals, and Round 4 will be for final rebuttals and closing statements. The last person to argue—in this case, Con—will not be allowed to post any new arguments in the final round. There are a few rules I would like to clarify ahead of time. First, neither this resolution, nor any of these rules, may be altered after the point of accepance. Inclusive of this is the definitions included in this initial post. Second, any form of resolution-sniping, trolling, semantics, or plagiarism will not be tolerated, and will result in a forfeit of all 7 points. Third, please cite your sources in whichever format you prefer and include footnotes. Both debaters must be able to access the materials of the other, so citing a print source will not be allowed unless the materials are available online in some way. If you do cite a print source, please indicate from where you took your information. The same is true for an online journal: instead of merely saying, "(x) assertion is borne out by (y) paper," please quote from the paper, precisely delineating the point you hope to convey. Finally, we will defer to Merriam-Webster for any definition not noted in this opening piece. Definitions: Preponderance of Evidence: "A requirement that more than 50% of the evidence points to something. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial. For example: At the end of a civil case A v. B, 51% of the evidence favors A. Thus, A has a preponderance of evidence, A has met their buden of proof, and A will win the case." [1]Minimum Wage: "The minimum amount of compensation an employee must receive for performing labor. Minimum wages are typically established by contract or legislation by the government. As such, it is illegal to pay an employee less than the minimum wage." [2]1. http://www.law.cornell.edu...2. http://www.investopedia.com...
Atheism is better than religon

Thanks for accepting. You mentioned that Mosted Christians are the cause of war and death in the world, But Kim Jong II who killed over over a 4 million fellow Korean's. Mussolini was a member of the Facist Party and was the Dictator of Italy during the Second World War. He supported Hilter's cause and used posion gas to take over parts of Africa. You state that the Nazi Movement was Christian but Stalin and Mussolini were both Athiest. http://listverse.com...
Atheism is better than religon

OK good to know my post got attention! Well I'll be as brief as possible to begin. First of all it is the most logical position, the position being no religion has proven itself with any actual evidence. Why should I say something is true if it cannot justify with evidence? (keep in mind atheism is not "I believe there is no god god" it is "I do not believe in a god nor have a religion") hopefully you know this already. So I can say on a logical basis this is why I would say being atheistic is batter than be religious. After that a lot of it comes down to morality. Being so relativistic and sadomasochistic as religion demands with the only moral truths being what you can derive from a holy book rather than reason and empathy to be humanist never could be a sound idea in ethical terms. Other than that you can simply compare what harm atheism has done to the world to that of religion. What has atheism done wrong....well... actually I might not know. There is not one war or mass slaughter or genocide or oppressive regime that has come about because of it so... I am short of what not having a religion really does. Religion however cannot dare to make this claim. Other than crusades/jihads lets get into the modern world. All of South West Asia and much of Africa suffers from its people (particularly women) being oppressed by religious laws made by religious regimes. To go back not even a century you find fascism in Europe taking hold and being supported by the Pope along with other denominational leaders. Hitler himself was either deeply defensive of Christianity proclaiming to be one, the whole antisemitic NAZI movement was Christian, the man even hunted down atheist groups, obviously did not like secularism. Lets go to Stalin a man who used the Russian Church (that he made official in 1955) to support much of his horrific crimes. Pol-Pot a complete Theravada Buddhist, Mao a man who had "heaven's mandate" keeping him in charge. The Japanese Emperor during WWII proclaimed himself to be a god. And in modern times again, North Korea's leader is a man who is dead but is said to be a god, Kim Jon Un is only head of state his ancestor is the god leader. To top it off you have Vladimir Putin who persecutes homosexuals and other religious groups for his religion. To finish yes religions do have charities and have done good things, HAMAS has social services and the KKK does charity and the Catholic Church along with Muslims, Jews have built hospitals but so has everyone else. Those hospitals would be there with or without them. And even if religion does good like has been mentioned it does not change the fact atheism is better based on all I have said. I think this is a good start. To give you a fair warning I WILL LEAVE if you repeat things or use arguments that have already been explained to you in the above paragraph, I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME repeating something that has already been done, again I will leave if you repeat a fallacy which has already been explained, too many people do this and it annoys me.
Why Vaccines are good for us

i would dispute the term good for younot all food is good for youbut if you don't eat you dievaccines may have side effectstaking them increases your risk of death and diseasealcohohol is not good for you neither is potbut pot isnt as bad as alcohol and alcohol can be used medcinally as can potnothing is good for you as we all end up dead in the endif you don't take your vaccines you end up dead quickerand experience a life with a lower quality to itbeing sick is painfulvaccines like taxes are an evil but a necessary one
SUCCESS in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROVES THAT GOD NECESSARILY EXISTS

Your argument is nil, saying "that is true" or "that is a strawman fallacy" doesn't prove or disprove a thing you say. You have taken me out of context yet again, to the voters, have you noticed how 99% of his entire round 4 debate was him putting quotes of things that he said and saying "yup that's true"."Your adamancy to the point that science cannot exist without a god" I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.But if we take a quick peek at Round 2 arguments we have" especially considering the science behind it" Without God, there could be no science.therefore that rebuttal of yours is nil, voters, just refer to this:"P3.1: If "something like God" exists in reality, then God necessarily exists in reality." That is true. "(In order for any real entity to be actually "like God," God would also have to be real " otherwise the entity in question would necessarily be "unlike God" by dint of one being real and the other being unreal)." That is also true. "P3.2: "Something like God" exists in reality. (See Preliminary Proof in Section 1, above, for Proof of this Premise)." That is also true. "Not only is this argument feeding off of the circular reasoning" No it isn't, and I didn't commit any circular reasoning -- only you did that. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong. " it's also a logically incoherent idea." No it isn't. " Your tone implies that there is without a shadow of a doubt a God," No it doesn't.and try to tell me that a coherent or logical argument has been made on his side in any way shape or form. He has taken me out of context and has again assumed that I believe *I don't, for the second time* in a god.No I haven't -- I didn't commit any circular reasoning, and you didn't point out any circular reasoning on my part. You are the only one that has committed circular reasoning in this debate. Also, without God, circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong anyway.what kind of rebuttal is this? You know that religion doesn't always reign supreme in a debate, you can't just say "that's true because without god it wouldn't be" and win, you have LOST this debate, there is no arguing against it. I pointed out your circular reasoning, you have taken me very obviously out of context multiple times, and provide nothing new to say with your arguments. Good luck in the voting, you'll need it
SUCCESS in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD PROVES THAT GOD NECESSARILY EXISTS

My opponent wrote: "I would strongly urge you to not be so arrogant in a debate of which you're using logic to the tune of " Without God, arrogance could not be objectively wrong. Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the logical and the illogical. "Preliminary Premise A: Without God (or something like God), nobody could successfully complete the scientific method.* That is true. "The main issue I have with your argument now is your failure to realize that I deconstructed your points, plain and simple." No you didn't: Merely saying that you did is not the same as actually doing it. "You say that a God is behind the constancy of the universe 100%, without a shadow of a doubt," I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. " God is the only thing that can screw up the constancy of the universe to such an extent." Again, we agree that that is proof of God (and I am happy that you agree with the fact that God exists), but that is a subject for a different debate: Please try to stay on my actual argument during this present debate, if you possibly can: I have not made that argument during this debate. ". The laws of nature are also just laws made by man" No they aren't: Gravity, for example, is holding your body to the planet right now, but a law made by man cannot do that. "there is 0 constancy to gravity" Actually, gravity remains constant every day, without any change whatsoever, over time. "There is no constancy to the laws of physics" Yes there is: They do not change one iota from day to day, as time passes: They remain 100% constant. "Show me some legitimate evidence that science just *cannot* exist without a god" I never made such a claim, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. You offered no valid arguments and no valid refutations to my argument, only a slew of straw man logical fallacies, whereas I provided air-tight evidence for all of my statements. Therefore I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Short Poems Battle

I like that a lot, Vant. Very sensuous and reminiscent. Here is my next piece, which requires little explanation. I will let the words speak for themselves:LoverOn the night my lover left, I struck the evening air.Where before the silence hung, a cry was there.Now I forget that feeling how I kissed the crescent moon.Slippery rays have turned those days on end a bit too soon.But staring into empty space,I smile to your imagined face'Til I will lose, upon a sighThe feeling that you still were my lover.
Short Poems Battle

Nice poem there chamaeleon, I'll do my best to provide some explanation for mine. Moved The moment runs aground as, Wind-hurried, The wet wood of memory Uncharts its growth Young exotic winds Inflate the grey and hungry sails Soon, even the gulls that follow Have only the wave-life in mind OK, so obviously the thematic concerns here are youth, change/time and memory. The primary metaphor is of a ship, symbolic of a body or a vehicle of change/time, engaged in a journey that causes it to forget itself, as we all do to some extent or another as we grow older. The exotic winds are the promises of adulthood that drive the change. The moment referred to in the first stanza is representative of youth as memory, being hurried along and slowly but surely forgetting the journey. The gulls (and I'm just guessing here lol), are probably symbolic of those aspects of childhood that are carried forward, but which are then channelled towards different ends (competetiveness, obsession, fear etc) in adulthood.
Short Poems Battle

Simple AnswersYou who seek one answer to a questionGive credence far too much to a suggestion.For where some quality a human seesAre likely many symptoms unperceived.And lazy minds will find their moral steadWhere carelessly cuts Occam's razor edge.Explanation:My first poem is a commentary on the foolishness of man, and how eager we are to claim knowledge and certainty. There is a reference in this work to Occam's razor, with which some of you may be familiar. For those who are not, Occam's is something of a guideline for scientific inquiry. It suggests that, in forming a hypothesis or a theory, factors of an explanation should not be multiplied beyond necessity because each factor of an explanation requires an explanation of its own. Many people have paraphrased this as 'the simplest answer is the right one,' but Occam never says anything about a model being right or wrong, he just proposes a guideline about how to go about testing one. It would be more accurate to paraphrase him as having said 'start with the simplest explanation and go from there.' Hopefully, this helps to bring the meaning out of my poem for you. Thanks for reading.
Short Poems Battle

I posted this debate about a week ago, but after accepting, my opponent posted nothing, so I'm posting again and asking for a new challenger. This will be a battle of short poems; 16 lines or less. By a line, I do not mean a sentence, I mean a horizontal line of text. These poems must be your own, and I will be checking your work for authenticity. The 1st round is for accepting the debate, poems begin with the 2nd round. Feel free to tell us anything you want about the poem in single paragraph before or after the poem.
Green is just plainly a "better" color then purple.

Way to post the entire wiki page. ----rebuttal---- The purple triangle was a Nazi concentration camp badge used by the Nazis to identify several un-orthodox non-conformist religious groups known as Bibelforscher, mostly Jehovah's Witnesses. thats not good. ----argument---- Green is common in nature. Green is the color of the U.S dollar. Sports teams with the color green: Greenbay Packers Boston Celtics and much much more going "green" is the new term for being eco-friendly ----references----- common knowledge and sense