BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Competition v. Collaboration.

This debate will focus on principle of Competition v. Collaboration as bed rocks from which a society is built. These are not argued in a mutually exclusive way, simply as which one ( Collaboration or competition) is better suited to be the foundation of our social interactions and societal expectations. Con will be responsible for arguing in favor of Competition as a foundation for societal interactions. Debate timeris 3 days,10k characters and First round will be Acceptance + paragraph or position summary. Before accepting I recommend taking the time to listen to this: I will reference it alot.
The most profitable superpower, that the human mind can imagine, would be superpower manufacturing.

Time to flex my semantic-fu muscles and finish this.First of all, almost everything you said in your last round is demonstratably false."Firstly, the closing statement "Thus, my power is superior to yours in all situations." is untrue. You just stated that there is a situation in which we are equally profitable and yet you then say that your power is superior to mine in ALL situations..."If you take what I said out of context, then you are course correct. In reality, I went on to explain that I was one step less towards total domination, thus I was superior. So, your point here fails.Next, you propose that if we received our powers simultaneously, you would immediately give yourself immunity to my power. Then you say that I couldn't know anything about you or your powers, so I wouldn't know to prevent it... So you're allowed to give yourself the power to block other powers, but I'm not allowed to actively prevent everyone from blocking my power? Also, the time gap kills you here and gives me an obvious advantage.Since you take 15 seconds to use receive your power, I have plenty of time to make my first move; preventing all living beings from blocking the use of my power and giving themselve a power equal to mine.Alternatively, I could just stop all people on Earth from having any dealings with you, thus make you increasingly unhappy until you just choose to give yourself the power to explode your own head.Additionally, you have misrepresented my power:There is a big difference between these two:I choose the power to completely and utterly manipulate all living beings at all times.I choose the power of completely and utterly manipulating all living beings at all times....and the difference is that I can choose whether or not to manipulate people.SUMMARYArguments: My opponent's ridiculously over-powered power is convoluted, in that he has to think of a power before he can give it to himself and then he has to go through this 'shudder' process to use it. My power is simply control over every living being in the Universe, which is superior for the reasons I've laid out throughout this debate.S&G: My opponent made no ridiculous mistakes, so this is even.Conduct: My opponent immediately broke the condition I laid out in my first round by adding that powers can be traded between people. This adds an extra element which I had no idea of when I accepted. Conduct should go to me for this point.Sources: I'm definitely a saucy individual, but this is also even.GG, my friend. Please don't make any more douchebag, auto-win debates.
The most profitable superpower, that the human mind can imagine, would be superpower manufacturing.

Firstly, the closing statement "Thus, my power is superior to yours in all situations." is untrue. You just stated that there is a situation in which we are equally profitable and yet you then say that your power is superior to mine in ALL situations... Self-contradiction at its finest. You said that if we received our powers simultaneously You would be more profitable than me. But what if I immediately gave myself immunity to all powers in, say, fifteen seconds (five seconds to shudder and think, then ten seconds to confirm my request) then I doubt that in fifteen seconds you would have realised that I have the ability which I do. You power merely would be to control all minds all the time, not the READ all minds all the time so ou'd be unaware of who I was or what power I had and wouldn't think, in fifteen seconds, of controlling anyone with a power to come forward and by that time I'd be immune to your power. The reason I say within fifteen seconds is that it's common sense, if one can have all powers that they would pick immunity to all other powers as soon as they could (for all they know they've been under mind control for their whole life). As I said proposing a power to be superior to mine when, in reality, it's only superior if you get it before mine is ridiculous. In terms of the profitability of your power, all you gain is control. I can leave people fully conscious and to be who they want as they like. You can't ever hav ea true friend, ever fall in love since you are unable to turn it off (you explicitly stated 'at all times' in your introduction to your power). Mine allows me to pick and choose which powers I want and which I do not. Any power that would indicate permanence I can simply choose not to produce.
The most profitable superpower, that the human mind can imagine, would be superpower manufacturing.

This is really an impossible debate for me to win, unless I try such extreme under-handed tactics.So let me elaborate...If you exist in seperate worlds, our powers are (at the least) equally profitable. You can simply give yourself this power, or any of a number of 'money-producing' powers mentioned in the comments. However, I assert that since my power is one step less towards total global control, it is superior in "yielding advantageous returns or results".If however, we existed in the same world and received our powers simultaneously, I would clearly be more profitable than you. On that ground, I obviously win this debate.Thus, my power is superior to yours in all situations.Over to you.
The most profitable superpower, that the human mind can imagine, would be superpower manufacturing.

I counter this on the very premise that it only works if you get your power before mine. We are discussing which the most profitable superpower is. Not which would win in a battle. If,you died and no longer could control my mind or if at any time under your control, I happened to find a way to convince myself to manufacture immunity to all powers and assign it to myself then I would suddenly lose all mind control and then while out of your control create the power to not just turn back time but undo actions altogether, then undo everything I did and then make you a miscarriage (since I can manufacture that power too. Besides, we are discussing profits of the power itself, not who would beat the other.
The most profitable superpower, that the human mind can imagine, would be superpower manufacturing.

I choose the power to completely and utterly manipulate all living beings at all times.I explicitly prevent my opponent from giving himself this power and if he does, I force him to give himself the power to remove other powers and then remove aforementioned power.Now, my opponent, being super-human himself is completely under my control and unable to do anything about it. Since his power requires him to be in the vicinity of the people he wishes to give powers to, he is unable to affect me (even though he couldn't anyway).I force him to give me 51% of his profits, making my power more profitable.Over to you.
The most profitable superpower, that the human mind can imagine, would be superpower manufacturing.

YES! Thank you to my opponent for not being a coward and stepping up to the plate when he could. I will stick to my definition as long as you realise that if the definition is "the making or producing of power greater in scope or magnitude than that which is considered natural or has previously existed." then, once produced, the power can be traded just like a shampoo bottle can be traded once manufactured. The nature of the power is something like this (I will accept an alternative method of it being carried out, as long as it doesn't limit the power's capacity): The user 'shudders' their body by a voluntary action that is only voluntary after having got the power for one can not voluntarily shudder the entire body continuously unless they have a genetic mutation. While in this shuddering state (it is quite different from shivering in that it doesn't warm the body up but merely separates the mind from any physical attribute). When the shuddering occurs, the user enters a state of mind in which it is purely imagination (all other parts of brain are shut off, apart form memory as without remembering what power they wanted before entering the state, one cannot imagine a power. The person continues to imagine until they stop imagining. If the power has no further alterations, conditions or terms of use added to it for 10 seconds then the power will be created. I argue that this power is the most profitable since no other power has the same reaping of rewards, nor results, as this power. My opponent cannot simply base their debate on countering my power being profitable but rather has to prove that there exists one, if not more powers that are more profitable.
The most profitable superpower, that the human mind can imagine, would be superpower manufacturing.

As the pro I shall be setting out boundaries and giving definitions. I would like the con to focus more on proving my case wrong than proposing a better power, however I shall accept the latter tactic, it just complicates the debate more. Boundaries of this debate: - 1) Do not say that my suggested power is impossible since we are being imaginative and talking in terms of fantasy and not reality. Definitions: - Profitable: yielding advantageous returns or results. [1] Superpower: power greater in scope or magnitude than that which is considered natural or has previously existed. [2] Human: A human being. [3] Human being: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. [4] Mind: the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges. [5] Imagine: to form a mental image of (something not actually present to the senses). [6] Manufacturing: Present-tense of manufacture. Manufacture: the making or producing of anything. [7] Superpower Manufacturing [self-created definition]: The making or producing of power greater in scope or magnitude than that which is considered natural or has previously existed. Sources: [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [7] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Hillary Clinton for President

As a response to your final statement, I understand that you wanted to get your point across strong. No worries. :) As I stated in round one, round four is to be used for closing statements only. I'm afraid I still don't agree that Hillary should be our next President. On guns, I think the National Review is credible. It links to other sources and studies, and uses facts, therefore, it is not solely one's opinion as my opponent believes. On foreign policy, I believe she is untrustworthy - and yes, that does matter. We are electing a person, not an idea - and trust is just as important as ideology. On tax reform, I support a limited progressive tax, however, I doubt a progressive tax will be enough to stop the monopolies my opponent warns about. In fact, it may be what pushes the wealthy to leave the country, thus greatly harming the American economy.
Atheism is More Beneficial Than Theism

He is right I recently debated this subject previously and was kind of successful. So lets see if I can do the same here. Resolution: Atheism is more beneficial than Theism. My opponent did not give definitions to his resolution so I offer some here: Beneficial- conferring benefit; helpful in the meeting of needs! More- In greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: an additional quantity, amount, or number. I agree to my opponents definition of Atheism and Theism! My opponent also used the word belief in both definitions. So my opponent asserts that atheism is in fact a belief. So I offer a definition of belief as well: Belief- Doctrine that a person or group accepts as true; an opinion, especially a firm and considered one. I will go forward by these definitions since my opponent did not give any in his RD1. I also give some rules and round structure also. Rules: 1. Must stay on topic. 2. Debate must stay respectful. 3. Pro is required to make the argument and provide reasons why atheism is more beneficial than theism. Con is required to rebuttal Pros argument and provide one of his own. 4. Winner will be who makes the most convincing arguments and evidence. Rounds: 1. Acceptance 2. Arguments 3. Rebuttals 4. Rebuttals 5. Conclusion I thank Pro again and hope this will be a good debate. I send it back to Pro! . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Atheism is More Beneficial Than Theism

I recently saw ScottyDouglas' debate and am interested in debating this resolution. I offer the following definitions and am also willing to hand the opening round to my opponent, though I ask he limit the amount words in his final round to 4000 to make it fair.Atheism- The doctrine or belief that there is no God [1].Theism- The belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe [2].In other words, I challenge you ScottyDouglas! Will you accept? [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
It is time to scrap our basic political structure starting with the Two-Party System

I agree with the con completely that " It is better to have 2 or more parties in constant state of debating than to have little to no diversity in office at all". The thinking that lead to this debate topic took a step further than the point the con made and my argument is that we need more than 2 visible parties in order to more accurately represent the wide diversity in America. I should have been more specific in my opening for this topic, what I meant is, not that our Two-Party System should be reduced, but rather expanded. I was thinking more along the lines of a political system that offers the same campaign visibility to multiple parties instead of just to the traditional Democrats and Republicans and additional parties should be represented in congress. A vague outline of what I would call a "Multi-Party System" allows equal campaign visibility, in the form of media coverage, to at least 3 established political parties in the primaries portion of the presidential election. With equal campaign visibility for 3 or more parties in the primaries, voters could cast their vote for any candidate of an established political party and the 2 candidates with the most votes would move on to the main presidential election. I realize this system sounds very similar to what currently exists, but I want to highlight that only the Democrat and Republican Parties currently have the monetary resources to be visible enough in the media to recruit voters. Furthermore the Democrat and Republican Parties come with an implied consent of approval from our government that no other party is afforded. In this Multi-Party system our government would have to be the objective mediator of multiple parties just as the NCAA objectively looks out for student athletes. The government would be responsible for campaign visibility for multiple parties and recognize at least 3 (but 4 sounds better) political parties with genuine intentions to ensure America as a prosperous country. The 2016 presidential election provides many examples of the flaws with in our current political system. One is how people of specific position, not intent, can easily be elected into office. A second is the observation of Hilary Clinton winning the popular vote while Donald Trump winning the electoral college vote highlights the failure of the Two-Party System to convincingly determine who America wanted as it's next president.
It is time to scrap our basic political structure starting with the Two-Party System

Although its evident that our 2 parties have been idiotically tearing apart America, the existence of a party system leads to compromise of American values. It is better to have 2 or more parties in constant state of debating than to have little to no diversity in office at all. The lack of a party system wouldn't necessarily be totalitarian, but it would lack empathy. For example, take the issue of legalization of gay marriage. Its obvious the alt right supports the god- fearing view while those on the left are more open to human rights. The beauty of it is the diversity and everyone giving input to social or political issues.
Man rapes 14 month old daughter. He should be put to death

"Say, you had a daughter, and the mother let another man do this to your little girl, or even if it was your niece. Would you rather have him put to death, or life in prison with the chance that he can get out and do this to another? " - ProThe above is a false-dichotomy. My opponent is giving two options:(i) Death. (ii) Life in prison with a chance to get outHowever, this ignores the last round where I claimed that we can be tougher with regards to early release and not have to execute anybody. Thus, there is a third option:(iii) Life in prison without a chance to get out"I'm not in California, my state taxes go to many things, and part of those many things are the prisons holding the rapist and murderers that should be put to death. " - Pro California was only one example. Execution is generally more expensive than life imprisonment for tax payers across the board. Take Kansas for instance. A legislative audit in 2003 found that the cost of an execution is 70% more than the alternative. In Tennessee it is 48% more, and in Maryland it is three time more [. http://www.amnestyusa.org...]. "The punishment should fit the crime, the man killed his daughter, he should be put to death. "Does this not make us just as bad as him however? If we are killing him for taking a life, then how is that not hypocritical? "People in poverty did nothing wrong, and have it worse then a murderer in prison. "My opponent forgets that it is not worse for a pedophile. People who rape children get it the worst in prison. "As part of my psych course I interviewed several prison inmates, all of them hated pedophiles. The term 'rockspider' comes to mind. One inmate I talked to proudly boasted that he had shattered the rib cage of a pedophile and all the others admitted they would not hesitate to "go" a pedophile if they got the chance. " - [. http://answers.yahoo.com...]I am not sure how reliable the above source is, however it is common knowledge that pedophiles get it bad in jail so I believe it. Killing the pedophile would stop him from being tormented and jail. Killing him would be doing him a favor in the long run! Conclusion------------My opponent did not meet her burden of proof. I met mine. She also had no sources, so I urge a source vote.
Man rapes 14 month old daughter. He should be put to death

Say, you had a daughter, and the mother let another man do this to your little girl, or even if it was your niece. Would you rather have him put to death, or life in prison with the chance that he can get out and do this to another? The life in prison does nothing when people let these mentally ill men and women back on the streets. It's a slap on the wrist. I'm not in California, my state taxes go to many things, and part of those many things are the prisons holding the rapist and murderers that should be put to death. The punishment should fit the crime, the man killed his daughter, he should be put to death. The woman watched him do it, she should have it done to her, and put to death as well. People in poverty did nothing wrong, and have it worse then a murderer in prison. Our jail system has drug dealers and small time criminals doing hard time without the chance of parole, and these blooded criminals get out on good behavior. A man in prison was known as "crowbar" he raped little girls, younger than 1 years old, with a crowbar. This man faced life in prison, but is out on parole.
Man rapes 14 month old daughter. He should be put to death

"Yes, death sounds harsher then life sentence, but tax payers money is used for the prisons." - ProI said life imprisonment would be harsher, as they can suffer if they are alive. You cannot suffer if you are dead so death is the easy way out. The rapist deserves a punishment (I suppose you are arguing), so the best one would be life in prison. Also, executions actually cost tax payers more than life imprisonment due to the long and complex judicial process for capital cases. Take California for example:"California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment."[http://www.deathpenalty.org...]"California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement." [http://www.deathpenalty.org...]"suppl the meals, and they recreational sports. Not only with this, most are let out early on "good behavior". This gives the people the chance to do it again and again, till put to death." - ProThis just means they we have to stop letting them out, not that we have to kill them. Conclusion------------Executions are more expensive than life imprisonment, and give the rapist/ killer an easy way out instead of suffering. The resolution has been negated.
Man rapes 14 month old daughter. He should be put to death

Yes, death sounds harsher then life sentence, but tax payers money is used for the prisons. To suppl the meals, and they recreational sports. Not only with this, most are let out early on "good behavior". This gives the people the chance to do it again and again, till put to death. The Kathlynn Shepard murderer, he was already in prison before for the abduction of two girls. Let out early, on "good behavior" and kidnaps two more girls, killing one innocent girl.
Man rapes 14 month old daughter. He should be put to death

Death is the easy way out. If punishment is the goal, then this man should suffer. One cannot suffer if they are dead; they cannot even think. If one is alive, then can suffer, which is a real punishment. The person can think about their actions, which is real punishment. We all die, so killing him is not really a punishment. Once death happens, the man has no chance to suffer as he is gone. I think that death, while sounding more harsh than a life sentance, is actually the easy way out for the criminal. It it easier for him to just die instead of spending the rest of his life with guilt. I think spending the rest of his life with guilt is a harsher punishment, than simply ending his life. Also, other inmates tend to not favor pedophiles. Killing this man will be an "escape", as death is certainly better than getting beaten up and raped by other inmates due to being a target. Basically, life in prison as a pedophile is a real punishment. Death is a way our for the criminal, you would actually be doing him a favor!
Man rapes 14 month old daughter. He should be put to death

In Missouri, a man rapes his 14 month old daughter, while the girlfriend watches. He killed the little girl by strangulation, the force of the impact would have killed her. The man is charged with first degree murder, the woman charged with second degree, sentence is undermined. Death Penalty should be used for this because the man took away the innocence of the this little girl, let alone for the murder. Yes, it is immoral, but so is the actions of this man and woman, they together, murdered their baby girl. Yes, they can plead insanity. But if that is the case, they should still be put to death because they were both well aware of the actions and in this case, the punishment should fit the crime.