BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Immigration is changing rural England life

THE L WERD. you havent covered anything in that department? DEBATES are based on two people who can understand each others "views" yet .... fight for what they believe to be right or wrong the L WERDs postition in this is she assumes that only things can go one way completey repetivness behaviour brought up appearences.. uncompletely irrelevant stereotyped & contridicted herself numerous times. I would have liked to debate this debate with someone who wasnt all wrapped up in personal statements and personal views. thats why i refuted (: I DONT DEBATE IDIOTS
Immigration is changing rural England life

I'll leave the "personal attacks" for the Comments Section. Insofar as the actual debate (if you can call it that), my opponent has proven to be completely incompetent. Considering the fact that she will probably forfeit the remainder of the rounds, I'd ask voters to consider the fact that (1) I argued against every point that the ACTUAL AUTHOR of this article made, and (2) Pro has failed to adequately (or even inadequately) refute just one of my contentions, let alone all of them. That being said, please extend all of my arguments. I don't feel the need to post any more in support of the Con position at this time. Should my opponent actually attempt to debate me/this in the future, I'll supply even more contentions for the Con. That's all for now.
Summer break shouldn't exist

Summer break. I love it, other people love it, lots of people love it. Yet during summer break I pondered on about if we should have it. Over the summer we forget a lot of things and have to listen to hours of review on things that we forgot. So how do we fix this? I propose scrapping our current system and splitting it up between small breaks. Why? [1] You forget things over the summer It's a fact of life. We forget things over summer break. Over the several months we swim, we play, we might write.. But yet we don't have anything to keep our minds sharp except for the review packets (but let's be honest here. Most of us do it at the last minute or right when we get home so we can get it over and done with.) By having small breaks you still have the same amount of time off but you'll remember things. [2] Learning creativity By having more small breaks, we can teach new things that we don't have the option to otherwise (ie due to the temperature we can do lessons outside.) [3] Poor children Many poor children go hungry or get in trouble during the summer break. School is a refuge that gives them free food and overall fun. [4] Stress School can be stressful and summer break is a relief. Summer break, however, is a one time thing Having small summer breaks scattered around the year can make it so students have less stress overall. Think of it like water coming up a tube slowly and the water is stress. You can have a few times you can drain it over the year, but then it rises in the gaps. Then once a year it's all drained away, and then it comes back. On the other hand you can have small breaks year round and gradually drain it. Which one would you choose? I would choose the gradual method. [5] You can learn more By doing this you can get rid of review and just get on with the things you need to learn. [6] We don't do much during summer break. Yeah, we have a few vacations, maybe 1 or 2, but after that? There's not much we can do. We're not millionaires! So what do people do? What I've seen is kids playing video games and watching YouTube. If we have small breaks, kids can exercise more during that time because of Gym classes. Furthermore with better weather there are more things they can do in Gym.
Summer break shouldn't exist

You probably know the routine. I will be arguing that summer shouldn't exist and con will be arguing that it should. Also use the check your spelling button before submitting your argument. Rules: [1] No trolling [2] Be civil [3] Try not to use logical fallacies [4] If you need extra time or want to continue this debate, message me. [5] You have to answer in 72 hours in order to prevent bugs. [6] You have a max of 10,000 characters. If you need more, put your argument on a Google document and submit that as your argument. Format: Round 1 - Opening statements Round 2 - Opening arguments are rebuttals Round 3 - Rebuttals Round 4 - Closing Arguments/Statements
there should be universal background checks on gun sales

con mostly focuses on the politically unrealistic nature of universal checks. but this doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. that is the whole point of the resolution, that it should be done, not that i can be realistically done. to add checks to the measures, sales from family friends or the street should be done with a check, or the sale is illegal. even con admits some checks could feasibly be accomplished that aren't already done. given those, and given the checks that should be done even if they can't feasibly be, checks would accomplish SoME people to not buy guns. it might not deter everyone, but some is enough. not everyone is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun. and thus, some increased checks will result in some reduced gun violence.
there should be universal background checks on gun sales

Thanks for the debate! Pro believes we should have universal background checks on gun sales. I assume that Pro is referring to the U.S. National Instant Background Check system (NICS) mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) of 1993. I take the word Universal here to mean that any gun sold to a U.S. citizen should include a background check through the current NICS system.I will be arguing that we should not have Universal background checks on gun sales through NICS.
Is nationalism nazism

Whether Hitler's goal was to expand to the whole world or not, It's pretty clear that his goal was to expand his nation. The word "nation" is right there. Supporting and promoting your country, Especially if you want it to take over the world, Is nationalism. I feel like you're just using this debate as a vehicle to spread propaganda about how "free" and "independent" countries saved the world. Sure, They did some good stuff, But they're far from innocent themselves. Nationalism is all about prioritizing and promoting the nation. Hitler wanted to influence the rest of the world, Sure, But the only thing he cared about was the nation he was ruling, And his allies. In fact, There are different forms of nationalism.
Is nationalism nazism

But if the world was one large nation, Which is the opposite to nationalism, And Hitler would have won the election in 1933 over one great world nation no one would have stopped him. Thank the free and independant nations of the world that stopped him because otherwise you would have lived in a nazi world. Nationalism is what keeps a nation together during hard times, It gives you a Connection to the people on the streets that you have never met but still you have something in common. And in war nationalism is only positive because no one will fight for a nation they don't feel a part of. The most nationalistic animals are the ants, They all belong to ONE Anthill and they all follow their leader orders. And what they accomplish is a home that they can live in. All ants are ready to die for their anthill to deffend their home. There is no switching betwen anthills because one is better than the other, All ants fight for one anthill, One nation.
Whale Wars: Sea Shepherds not good.

You should also know that Greenpeace have accused several Japanese whaling vessels of deliberately ramming them [1], and in another incident a whaling vessel was filmed firing water cannons at a Greenpeace helicopter. If the water had not been avoided this could very easily have resulted in a crash fatal for everyone on board [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.greenpeace.org...
Whale Wars: Sea Shepherds not good.

Firstly, your premise is flawed. Sea Shepherd's not 'good'. Definition of good (from the Oxford Dictionary): Adjective - to be desired or approved of. Noun - 1. that which is morally right; righteousness - 2. benefit or advantage to someone or something. [1] You then go on to imply that because the actions taken by Sea Shepherd are seen to be unlawful by some, it is impossible for them still to be 'good'. Sea Shepherd has a very clear goal - to stop whaling, which they see as a cruel and barbaric practice which causes suffering to animals and long-lasting harm to the environment (by reducing whale numbers to an unsustainable population). By interfering with whaling operations, Sea Shepherd can be deemed to be performing actions which they (and many animal rights activists) believe are morally right (i.e. good). The damage caused to Japanese whaling ships (legal issues aside) has in the past caused the number of whales taken to be dramatically reduced. This, again, can be classed as good - as it benefits the environment. So the statement 'Sea Shepherd's not good' does not stand. Whether or not you agree with the methods they use to get results, they have very strong morals and are working to benefit the whales by ending suffering. It should also be noted that there are serious doubts as to the legality of these whale hunts in the first place. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Whale Wars: Sea Shepherds not good.

As you all know the Sea Shepherds is a team of anti-whaling volunteers. Well they're not always doing the perfect, "right" thing. They have broken the law multiple times in season 6 alone. They were not allowed to come within 500 yards of whalers on open sea, and "physically attacking any vessel engaged by whalers" or from "navigating in a manner that is likely to endanger the safe navigation of any such vessel." according to the injunction filed against them. http://www.thewire.com... But they still purposefully blocked the Japanese from refueling their main ship. Thank you for reading and good luck!
Son-Goku (pro) VS Saitama (con)

Before I start I just need need to get one thing out of the way. Saitama is a gag character and his purpose is to just be able to take all enemies down with just one punch. If a crossover was ever made they would probably be even matched for it too be fun or Saitama would just defeat Goku with one punch. So for the sake of this debate let's try to find out who is actually stronger based on their feats. According too you when Saitama traveled back to earth he was about 660'000x faster then when Goku scaled the snake way. On the way back on the snake way it took less then 2 days for Goku. That means he was about 15x faster. His maximum straight then without kaioken was about 8000 then. When fighting freezer he is confirmed to be 3'000'000 in base form which is 375x stronger. When turning to Super Saiyan God Super Saiyan his straight is multiplied by 200'000x. That's more then 300 million times stronger then when he scaled the snake way minimum, since his base straight has increased since. That means he is at least 450 times stronger. When Saitama fought Boros even thought he didn't fight all out he said to Boros that he was really strong. When Saitama didn't fight back he took damage. And Boros can destroy a planet at full power. That's about what Vegeta could do that in the saying arc, when his strength level was about 18'000. If Saitama would have to have be more then 100'000'000x stronger then Boros.
Son-Goku (pro) VS Saitama (con)

Saitama has so far killed every single enemy he has faced with one single punch, and these are some pretty strong super villains. In the final fight of the anime up to date against lord Boros: Saitama was sent flying all the way to the moon. How strong could he really be? In the anime it only takes a total of 9 seconds for his "trip" flying back to earth. Thing is that the moon is over 284 000 km away. That means that he has had to travel at a speed of at least 43 000 km/second. PER SECOND; I would like to see Goku fly that fast. HEHE GOOD LUCK BEATIN THAT MATE: last thing I remember, It took Goku several months to scale the snake way, only traveling at 235 km/h. How much faster do you really think could Goku become?
Son-Goku (pro) VS Saitama (con)

The biggest discussion in anime history will finally come to a conclusion. Who is stronger, Saitama or Goku? Rules: First round acceptance. You may use OP manga up until chapter 135 and the season 1 of the anime. You may use the whole DB and DBZ manga and anime, and up until DBS chapter 34 and episode 131. No reference to non-canon sources (like movies) No forfeiting
Modification of the 1st Amendment

I think we both disagree with their perversion of Christian doctrine. However, we are debating whether or not the 1st amendment should be modified to prevent them from bothering grieving families. In what world do you thinkyou can prevent hateful action? The problem is not hateful action, the problem is protecting the families from the 1st amendment rights of the WBC without watering down the 1st Amendment. Many states have already solved the problem with State Laws making them protest at a considerable distance. Nothing is ever settled? Debates get settled here at DDO all the time! What I mean by laws using violence and the threat of violence is simply that to be enforced against someone who does not sanction them requires violence. The FBI, Police, Swat Teams kick in doors for a reason. I contend that the actions of the Patriot Guard are of a higher moral caliber because their actions do not use violence. To rephrase: I think the Patriot Guard's actions to protect grieving families are better than the police throwing the WBC protesters, especially the younger children, in jail. The 1st Amendmentlimits the power of Congress to infringe on rights, so we should not amend it just because we don't like the actions of a few. The Supreme Court has already agreed with me: -- Snyder VS. Phelps -- . http://www.supremecourt.gov...The "content" of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to public, rather than private, matters. The placards highlighted issues of public import—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of the Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—and Westboro conveyed its views on those issues in a manner designed to reach as broad a public audience as possible. Even if a few of the signs were viewed as containing messages related to a particular individual, that would notchange the fact that the dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues. .. That is because "speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it isthe essence of self-government. " Accordingly, "speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection. " The "leniency" of the 1st Amendment is specific as possible because of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Government is a necessary evil, not a solution to every little problem. A few headcases with signs does not warrant changing the 1st Amendment. I am sad for the people that have to live through the WBC's chicanery, but I would not change the constitution in an effort to prevent it. I would solve it with State Laws, just like State Governments already did. It is interesting that the WBC has more violence inflicted on them than from them. This reinforces the view of the hateful world, but from the Video, many of their members are educated, well adjusted, well spoken, and non-violent.
Modification of the 1st Amendment

I failed to see any depth in your argument. If one is disgusted with the way something is going then, yes, it does make sense for them to seek some sort of action to better it. So how few states have passed that law? If it was an imminent issue it should be addressed within each state. I used the Westboro Baptist church as an example, this is not to say they are the only example out there. Do we have to keep going back and forth between protesting and the protectors, as you listed in your example, fighting to be seen and unseen, until it is made right? How does that solve anything? There may be people who are making a conscious effort to do the best they can to prevent such a hateful action, however, it is still occurring. The patriot guards are secondary. The only logical way to end anything is to go to the source. Nothing will be solved if we deal with the secondary symptoms of the actions of the Westboro Baptist protesters and others. Nothing is ever completely "settled" however, I am not proposing a threat to anyone's personal rights- I am only suggesting that steps are made. One can pass laws and make rules and restrictions, but what good do they perform for society if they are not implemented? Also "a law uses violence and the threat of violence to accomplish the same goal." That of restrain more so then violence, if they have to restrain a person who resists, then they will. The way you stated that makes it seem as though laws advocate violence.. is that really so? No. Laws are put in place to structure society. You don't need to be violent to enforce a law. I fail to see any real evidence on that. Has violence occurred in the past? Of course- but this is not to say that laws are about violence. If that is the perception then it is very skewed. Laws protect our rights- but we must also exercise our rights in a humane way. We cannot expect things to go as stated- we are given these sources, these laws- and how we choose to act on them, if we choose to obey or disobey, that is our choice. http://occupywallst.org... Look what occupied wall street turned into. It started as a protest and became a complete mess. Women were raped, beaten- people had their money and items stolen. I even viewed a news report that mentioned a doctor called in to treat someone within the confines of this "camp" was beaten. This is a perfect example of how out of control things become- extremes like this- diseases, illness ("zuccoti" lung- a serious cough and respiratory virus that many protesters developed) - are not necessary. http://www.nbcnewyork.com... Furthermore, I'm not about just affecting the WBC- there are obviously other groups and people who act out in the same manner, and, therefore it would be directly affecting society as a whole. However, this doesn't have to be a negative affect. We have a say in this as a society. Collectively we cause and experience these issues, but we also can solve them. It is not about one person, one group, one people- it is about us, and the ripple effect of ones actions, and how society will began to change based on the leniency of the amendment.
Modification of the 1st Amendment

Petitioning has become a popular way to show disapproval and disagreement with someone or something, and, if we can't do so rationally, then how is it fair to expect the government to give us what we petition for? I fail to see where Pro showed any evidence of anyone doing anything irrationally. Here goes- When I was required to view this BBC news report on the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS, I was disgusted by the extremist actions against homosexuals and those who fought for our country and continue to fight. Members of the congregation constantly picket funerals of the fallen heroes holding signs such as "Pray for more dead soldiers" and "Thank God for 9/11". Just because you were disgusted doesn’t mean that 1. Your view is morally superior or 2. Writing a law would have the desired effect. There is no way to modify the constitution and only affect the WBC A constitutional amendment would have consequences far beyond silencing the WBC. State laws already restrict funeral protesting Numerous states have enacted laws that protect grieving families. Illinois passed the “Let them Rest in Peace” act, which makes it illegal to protest a funeral within 300 feet. http://www.military.com... Concerned Citizens defend grieving families without the laws Patriotic Motorcycle clubs are invited to the funerals, they then form a line and each hold huge American flags which block the WBC protestors from the sight of the grieving families. This action is of the highest moral order because it a decision made without any laws, whereas a law uses violence and the threat of violence to accomplish the same goal. http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Modification of the 1st Amendment

Recently, The First amendment has come to my attention as a right that is frequently abused. There are many religious, political, and environmental groups that have overstepped their boundaries and have gone from advocating "better" lifestyles to taking drastic measures and almost attacking other groups of people who seem to disagree with their view on the world, politics, religion, etc. It is one thing to express a view based on ones judgement but it is another to mentally abuse and demean people who disagree with your view. A recent BBC Documentary I viewed supplied fuel for my debate and I believe it is also an important topic for discussion, the documentary is called "The Most Hated Family In America" and I will reference it in my argument. Many issues involving the amendments are often ignored or overlooked because many abhor the fact of possibly limiting the civil liberties of the people. However, I believe there can be a way to restrict this amendment without taking away the rights we all reserve. I have done much research on this topic and am interested in debating and discussing the pros and cons of this and hearing what all have to say in regards to this topic! First round acceptance, five rounds total. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com... - this is the link for the documentary if you'd like to get an idea of what I am referring to.
Modification of the 1st Amendment

Since PRO did not post, in the interests of learning, I am going to paste this from the WBC's official FAQ on their web site. What would you do if a homosexual attended your church?Regardless of any person's private conduct, we would do unto them as we would have them do unto us. By a fear of God, we would declare the whole counsel of God to them, lest their blood should be on our hands. We would share the Gospel (good news) with them, and we would treat them like we would treat any other person on this earth. We would treat them with kindness, and follow those scriptural injunctions that require that we preach the gospel to every creature."And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:15."So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also." Romans 1:15."Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel." Romans 15:20."For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." I Corinthians 1:17."For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!" I Corinthians 9:16.There are many more such passages. Knowing always that it is only by the foolishness of preaching that any man is saved, preaching a pure, complete, unvarnished gospel, is our duty, and it is the only hope for salvation. See Galatians 1:9 - "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." and Romans 10:17 - "So, then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."http://godhatesfags.com...