BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: "Digimon: Digital Monsters" is an Outdated Show

1. First of all, every digimon's name ends with "mon," which I am certain that all of us who watched it above the age of ten found to become cliche very quickly. Also, their names are commonly very unintelligible and weird to Americans as we originally have no idea what names like "Agumon," "Greymon" or "Ikkakumon" are intended to imply about the Digimon bearing these names. 2. The characters also have few like able attributes. For example: A. TK is a kindergartener who values friendship and is very kind and gullible, just like your real-life 5-year-old. B. Joe is an excessively disciplined, easily scared, learning obsessed stick-in-the-mud teen in a khaki vest over a dress shirt with a tie tucked in. C. "Mimi has been described as a 'girly girl'-a spoiled, ditzy, vain, and prissy girl who complains a lot, but also is sensitive, artsy, sweet and caring. She often talks of shopping and fashion. Mimi is also known to be infantile, and innocent." -http://digimon.wikia.com...
refugees should come to australia for help

I think it would be severely cruel of Australians, if they are as you describe, to invite refugees into their land just to treat them in the ways that you conveyed to be Australian hospitality.Additionally, this resolution is from the perspective of a refugee seeking help opting for australia, as opposed to more inviting unjudgemental nations.The Kiwis seem rather inviting, eh?http://www.youtube.com...
refugees should come to australia for help

Why do we as Australians or as any one simply judge people on their colour? "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!" this quote was by Martin Luther King, Jr and this man changed the world but now we are doing what he didn"t want, people being judged by there skin and what we are doing is judging them all just by a common stereotype. Boat people were unfairly tarnished by the children overboard scandal that won John Howard an election in 2001. However we now know that he was not telling the truth as tolled in the leaky boats documentary. And that is a clear example of Australians not being fair .
Greed is a good thing

Ironically, one instance of an argument on my opponent's side was actually one I was planning to use. Relativism.Relativism Reversal RebuttalIn concord with my opponent's assertion of logic, excessive is much more subjective than most adjectives, meaning it has a very weak reference point for quantification.Inordinance is neglgible on an objective level and depends solely on the person perceiving it. As such, this makes greed a completely worthless sentiment by the means of anyone else. You are greedy if you think you're greedy. It's subjective to you, which is why Pro is attempting to prove that you're greedy in correlation with more objective means, which is perfectly reasonable. This means, however, that I have the same liberties to use the aforementioned objective correlations.For instance, selfishness.Now, the Instigator here needs to correct several things in his argument. One fact that is asserted is the fact that "We should care about ourselves." Fair enough. Caring for ourselves makes us selfish. What happens if we're not selfish? We "do not survive too long." So, Aristotlean logic proves that we're probably all selfish as we all survive an excessive amount. Clearly, w-oh wait. That's a subjective term.How long must one survive in order to be selfish? I'll let my opponent clarify that in the next round.So, you're only greedy if you believe you're greedy. Remember that my opponent carries the BoP to prove universal greediness, meaning that if it's possible for a single person in the entire universe to not believe they're greedy or selfish, then Pro fails. By simple binary statistics, his argument collapses. You can either be greedy or not greedy. 50/50. Unless my opponent can bring that all the way down to 0%, his argument fails.Contention Condition Concession"No one wants the bare minimum in life besides some extremely religious people like monks.""No one...besides some extremely religious people like monks.""No one...besides...""...besides..."There cannot be exceptions! Absolutely NONE!"Greed is an aspect that exists in everybody" was the contention! My opponent even said that he and I are "in agreement" of that! The argument fails unless this is retracted!Now, I have an obligation to go pick up my sister. We teenagers are reckless drivers alone, so I'd best not wait until I'm late and end up speeding through the streets with my hormonal craze. I hope I've left enough to rebut and refute.
Greed is a good thing

To make it perfectly clear, by filling in any possible gaps, I can think of currently, even those that would appear inherently apparent, I'll be stating the debate in a formal manner that makes it simple for either side to disagree with concrete grounds for the discussion.DebateThe actual debate will be me, the Contender, as Con and my opponent, the Instigator, as Pro, in case you didn't know.My opponent, as the Instigating Pro, will be arguing for two things: Greed is an aspect that exists in everybody Greed is an aspect that should exist in everybody I, as the Contending Con, will be arguing against those two things, whether to neutralize them or antagonize them. BOP Because of the way the debate is set up, my opponent carries the Burden of Proof. Definitions Greed n. - An objective attribute of all beings that is perceived as a will to attain a state of ownership distinct from a state hitherto the attaining, whether through means of acquiescence or consenting compliance, to an inordinance. Acceptance If my opponent doesn't accept this, we may discuss in the comments what changes are necessary, or the next round. If we are in mutual acceptance, however, the debate will commence under these terms. If you didn't feel like reading any of that, I just stated the obvious. It's rather redundant. Nonetheless, it's nice to have grounds so the debate has some direction, as we only have 5 rounds. A lack of disagreeing by the time the next round has started means my opponent automatically agrees to said terms.
Greed is a good thing

he implied that selfishness caused one to survive too long.I never said any such thing. I said without selfishness (caring about one's self), you cannot survive. You will literally starve to death if you don't care enough about yourself to eat.He also asserted that excessiveness is a subjective notion.Of course it is subjective unless you can define it. I asked you how much weight is excessive and you did not answer. I asked you how much money is excessive or too much and you did not answer. Your own silence is proof that the word is highly subjective. My opponent then decided to answer my rhetorical question, saying that surviving as long as one can is too long. For some odd reason, you are stuck on this statement that I never even said!! Go back and read anything I have typed and find the words "too long" or anything of the sort. You asked "asked how long one would have to survive in order to be selfish" and I don't even get it. In this world, you survive as long as you can and you cannot survive without being selfish. Furthermore, you are getting off topic because this debate is about whether or not greed is a good thing. Greed is wanting more than you have or need. Selfishness is caring about only yourself or yourself more than others. I never said that people should care about themselves more than others but "selfish" is the closest word to describe caring about yourself period. Greed is not wanting more than others. It is about wanting more than you have. Greed and selfishness are not the same thing.If my opponent fails to amend this, this argument will be disregarded. Tossed out the window.I cannot amend something I did not even say about "surviving too long." That does not even make sense. I mean to say that if there is someone who wants more than they should want beyond what they have, then Pro loses. What? That was what I said from the first round and that is my whole point! If your statement is true and it is, then how on Earth do I lose??? You are agreeing with me and I lose? I said that people do want more and that is why you have clothes on YOUR back - because someone wanted to make clothes and sell them to you. By selling them to you, they get more. As wanting more than one should want requires knowing what one should want, it's subjective. Being that it's subjective, you're only greedy if you believe you're greedy. So, if anyone doesn't believe they're greedy, my opponent loses.Whether someone "believes" they are greedy is irrelevant. If I weigh 900 pounds and believe I am skinny, my belief too is irrelevant. If someone wants more than they have or need to survive, they are greedy. That is what greed is. By you saying "So, if anyone doesn't believe they're greedy, my opponent loses," you have lost me. I am starting to wonder if you are on some medication because you are not making sense. No disrespect meant but it does appear that way.
Greed is a good thing

To my opponent: I'll attempt to clarify my argument to the best of my ability near the conclusion of this round, but I'm more inclined to pick at your logic first.Rebutting a Rudimentary Rebuttal to the Relativism Reversal RebuttalI asked a couple questions to try to make coherence of my opponent's argument in the last round. I asked how long one would have to survive in order to be selfish. Pro's answer?"As long as one can."In case any readers of this debate don't remember what the context is from one round ago, I took the premise from my opponent in which he implied that selfishness caused one to survive too long. He also asserted that excessiveness is a subjective notion."Too long" and "excessive" are the same thing. So, I concluded that that's subjective. To bring attention to this, I asked the rhetorical question of what too long actually meant in regards to survival.My opponent then decided to answer my rhetorical question, saying that surviving as long as one can is too long. In other words, the span of your life, as long as it exists, is too long. To simplify the logic: If you live, you're selfish. You cannot live unless you're selfish.That's what's known as a fallacy. Circular logic fallacy.[1]If my opponent fails to amend this, this argument will be disregarded. Tossed out the window.Next, the Instigator of this Debate asks if I "mean to say that if there is one person in the universe that may not want one more thing than they have right now, [my opponent has] lost the debate." Partially. I mean to say that if there is someone who wants more than they should want beyond what they have, then Pro loses. As wanting more than one should want requires knowing what one should want, it's subjective. Being that it's subjective, you're only greedy if you believe you're greedy. So, if anyone doesn't believe they're greedy, my opponent loses.Odd Opposing OmissionPro wishes to appeal to comfort my emotions by saying "...virtually no one want the bare minimum in life to survive except maybe some monks..." However, emotions do not play into this debate, nor should they in any debate on this website. It's explicitly stated on statement 6 of this article[2] that emotions should be excluded.We are to analyze this logically and reasonably.For the record, however, it would not make me feel better for my opponent to say that. It still falls to the same flaw as an argument. It begs an exception against the terms we've agreed on. Of course, my opponent seemingly is unaware of these terms, judging by him asking where he said that he "...and I are in agreement on that..." The agreement is in the second segment of Round One and the first of Round Two. "Greed is an aspect that exists in everybody." "...we are in agreement on the terms." http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.debate.org...
Greed is a good thing

How long must one survive in order to be selfish? I'll let my opponent clarify that in the next round.As long as one can.that if it's possible for a single person in the entire universe to not believe they're greedy or selfish, then Pro fails.Geez, huh? Do you mean to say that if there is one person in the universe that may not want one more thing than they have right now, I have lost the debate entitled "Greed is a good thing?" (scratching my head completely confused)"No one wants the bare minimum in life besides some extremely religious people like monks.""No one...besides..."There cannot be exceptions! Absolutely NONE!Would you feel better if I said "virtually no one want the bare minimum in life to survive except maybe some monks? Does that clarify?"Greed is an aspect that exists in everybody" was the contention! My opponent even said that he and I are "in agreement" of that!Where did I say you and I are in agreement on that?I hope I've left enough to rebut and refute.Honestly, I have no idea what I am supposed to say to you at this point. I laid out my case, explained what greed is and why it is good for mankind's progress to be greedy. I did not see you even try to refute any of it so what am I supposed to debate about now? You like to use big words and change fonts but otherwise, I am not getting you. Be careful while driving your car...or should I say be fastidious while propulsing your conveyance?
The Platinum Coin

I'm against the trillion dollar to an extent however. If need be minting the trillion dollar coin may be our only option. If we come to yet another deadlock (which let's face we probably will), i believe that president should order a trillion dollar coin to be minted. If we fail to do this we risk yet another credit downgrade, this in turn causes the interest rate on us debt to raised and therefore unable to even get the chance to pay down our debt.
The Platinum Coin

We can't just make money so we can spend it. Just because congress went over the debt ceiling, which is the fiscal cliff basically, doesn't mean we should create(mint) more money, we need to earn it back and get the congress in line. Again, it is the moral issue that needs to be dealt with. Do you really want your government blackmailing other parts of it? Anyways, thanks for the debate. -THEVIRUS
The Platinum Coin

The reason we are in this mess is because the Republicans forced the President to give them what they want before they decide to destroy the debt ceiling and abandon the government (to make it fall apart). That is the whole idea behind the fiscal cliff. So, we don't need to make our money worth less (it decreases every time we make money, just not much) we need to improve the standards of our country so we aren't blackmailing each other in our government. It is a good thought, but the ethics need to be questioned, otherwise this will keep happening. This congress (2008-2012) had the lowest rate of bill/law creation/passing EVER, out of any other 4 year congress. We can't hold out to get what a few hundred might want but decides what happens to 314.69 million people.
Remove Barack Obama from white house yes or no & explain your reasons

It is not wise to believe what a document says about the Iran nuclear deal, Iran is indeed after nuclear weapons, and they have lied multiple times, no one trusts Iran not to develop nuclear weapons because that's what they have been trying to do all along, this deal does not prevent Iran from developing or getting a nuclear weapon, it simply delays the process. Iran has been working with North Korea on nuclear weapons, North Korea has even conducted tests on their weapons in 2006 and 2013. We also should not be giving any nuclear technology to a state that sponsors terrorism, not only that but this deal also involves giving Iran 150billion dollars to Iran, guess who is forced to pay for that 150billion, that's right the US tax payers, lets not forget that the majority voters is against the nuclear deal. Netanyahu has only threatened Iran because they continuously rage their proxy war against Israel, Israel is on the defensive, not offensive. Iran is the one who is threatening nuclear war, Netanyahu only acted in defense. America should not be funding terrorist states like Iran. We cannot trust Iran and some comments that you cited from the documents don't mean anything either, Iran is known for lying and not keeping their promises. Their reputation is against them. The majority who are against the vote are not just republicans, in fact, there are many democrats against the nuclear deal. Affordable Care Act: absolutely does force people to get health insurance, if you do not get health insurance you will be penalized, millions of Americans where told they could keep their doctors, well guess what, many Americans were denied coverage. The ACA has directly impacted businesses, and has even causes many to shut down, many of these businesses already had health benefits packages, when Obamacare was passed, they were no longer able to afford it and they had let go of many employees and like I said, many businesses have been shut down because of it. The ACA has gone through changes that were never approved by congress. The Obama Admin has no authority to change laws they can only veto or propose legislation. The ACA is a impeachable offense. You need to stop believing everything they tell you, because it is all lies.
Remove Barack Obama from white house yes or no & explain your reasons

FIRST: The Obama administration is circumventing congress on the nuclear deals with Iran, The majority in congress is against the nuclear deal, when they vote against it, obama will veto the vote, when congress overthrows obama's veto he will then declare congress to be non compliance, this will allow obama to use the UN (united nations) to approve the deal and force it into international law and force it on America. This is not what's best for america nor her allies or the world, we should not be giving nuclear tech to our enemies. Second: You cannot compare, Obama's amnesty with Regan's not only did regan and bush's amnesty also fail to legalize the amount of illegals they planned on, due to the broad spectrum of requirements and legal issues. Both Regan and Bush were in conjunction with congress it was also riddled with fraud and malpractice once it was passed, Obama is leveraging congress into passing amnesty by manipulating the law and bypassing congress not only on illegal immigration but also on the Iranian nuclear deal. THIRD: The ACA or Obamacare is a direct violation of the law specifically the commerce clause in the , because the government can not force anyone to buy goods or services. Obamacare alone, is an impeachable offense. Obama also violated the law by changing the laws in Obamacare, Obama is only authorized to propose and veto legislation, he is not authorized to change existing laws. This is an impeachable offense, as it involves multiple violations of the law... you seemed to ignore my points about Obamacare.
Remove Barack Obama from white house yes or no & explain your reasons

I am convinced we need to remove president Obama from the white house ASAP I will make all my points in one single post and I will allow you guys to do the rest. Do you agree that Obama should be removed from the white house or not? and explain yourself. His recent nuclear deal with Iran is an outrage, multiple countries are against this act not just Israel. It is also a blatant and open statement of where he stands with his own country. Iran has openly stated multiple times that they hate America so why should we offer them nuclear technology? At the same time Obama has demanded to reduce America's nuclear arsenal. He has committed borderline treasonous acts especially with the Iran Nuclear deal. His Amnesty policies are illegal. We should not be promoting open boarders and allowing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants many of whom are known convicted criminals and violent offenders including sex offenders. Many of these people are unskilled and illiterate in their own language. His health care policy AKA the Affordable Health Care Act is not only unsustainable but it is also a violation of the constitution... under the commerce clause, the government is not allowed to force people to buy goods or services. The ACA is a violation of our rights. (I also believe that forcing car insurance on everyone is also a violation of the commerce clause.) The Obama Admin knew about the Benghazi attack before it happened, recently it was discovered that the CIA was smuggling and selling American weapons to Al-Qaeda and other terrorists, After the release of her emails it was discovered that Hillary Clinton knew what was going on and allowed it to happen. Obama also allowed the supreme court to illegally impose gay marriage on all 50 states. Marriage is a state issue not a federal issue, and the supreme court alone does not have the authority to write laws. Judges cannot make laws, but they can make decisions to force legislators to act or not act a certain way which is of course unconstitutional. The states that voted against gay marriage now have it forced on them. If I'm not mistaken it is the gay community that constantly lectures conservatives to not impose their views, but now the gay community has forced gay marriage in all 50 states. Which is hypocritical.
Netherlands is better than Spain at Soccer.

Netherlands are better than Spain football club because firstly they have won more world cups and trophies than Spain. Secondly, they had some of the best players in the 1998 world cup including, Marc Overmars, Phillip Cocu, Edgar Davids, Frank de Boer, Ronald de Boer, and Patrick Kluivert,the Argentina in the quarter-final. rematch of the 1978 final. Near the end of regular time, after an unsuccessful dive to draw a penalty, Argentinean Ariel Ortega head-butted Edwin van der Sar.[4] Ortega was sent off and the Netherlands won 2–1 after a Bergkamp goal in the 89th minute. Bergkamp's goal was famous because of its quality — he touched down a 60-yard (55 m) pass from Frank de Boer then reverse-flicked it inside Roberto Ayala and finally volleyed it past the Argentine goalkeeper. In the semi-final, the Netherlands took Brazil to a penalty shootout after a late Kluivert goal tied the match 1–1, but Brazil won the shootout 4–2 and advanced to the final. Netherlands lost the third place match 2–1 to upstart Croatia. Soon after the World Cup exit manager Guus Hiddink resigned after two tournaments in charge and was replaced by legendary ex-midfielder Frank Rijkaard. Netherlands co-hosted Euro 2000 with Belgium and were one of the favourites coming into the tournament. Getting all three wins in the group stage, including a win over reigning World Cup champions France, they then crushed Yugoslavia 6–1 in the quarter-finals, with Kluivert getting a hat-trick. The Netherlands biggest win was 9-0 against Finland and Norway. They have won a total of 11 titles and spain have only won 6.
Netherlands is better than Spain at Soccer.

Spain is the best soccer club in the world at this current time. This information below will prove this to you: World Cup History: ** 2010 Winners - South Africa ** 1982 - Host Nation European Championship History: ** 2008 Winners - Switzerland ** 1984 Runners Up - France ** 1964 Winners and Host Nation ** Olympic History: 2000 Runners Up - Australia ** 1992 Winners and Host Nation ** 1920 Runners Up - Belgium Confederation Cup History: 2009 Runners Up - South Africa First internation match: 1 - 0 Win .vs. Denmark Biggest Win: 13 - 0 Win .vs. Bulgaria
Boys and girls should be taught in sepereate school

Good luck! While I do agree with my opponent that the social skill is important, my opponent is making the assumption that the kids are not social. For many "players" who focus on getting girls or a girl who focuses on getting guys, may not be able to focus well enough in school. "another reason is that it is stereotyping how girls and boys learn." You have not developed or proved your point? How is this so?