BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Who is responsible for the Death's of Romeo and Juliet.

First of all, it was Lord Capulet that was throwing the party, not Montague. Also, you have not shown any evidence that Count Paris was in any way personally responsible for the deaths of either of the star-crossed lovers. Sure, you could argue that if Juliet wasn't being forced to marry him, then she wouldn't have had to 'kill' herself to prevent from being married. But that just means it was her parents fault for forcing her to marry Paris! It didn't have to be Paris it could have been any old bloke! And Paris, as far as characters in Shakespear plays goes, was a pretty nice guy. The only thing violent he did in the play was when he dueled Romeo- who at the time was trying to break into the Capulet's catacombes. Paris didn't know that Romeo and Juliet even knew each other, let alone that they were man and wife as well as lovers. All he knew is that the Montagues hated the Capulets and did anything to hurt them when they had the opportunity. Count Paris was only trying to protect the body of his now deceased fiance, and what does he get for this act of chivalry? Death! Paris was an innocent caught in the middle of the ultimate family feud. Other than your misconception that Lord Montague was throwing the party where Romeo and Juliet met, I agree with most of your points. But where in the play does it say that Romeo saw Rosaline with another man, and that's when he decided to look for other women. I believe it went like this: In the first scene with Romeo in it, we already find out that Rosaline has rejected him. Then, Benvolio suggests that he find someone else to fall in love with. After he reads the letter of the serving man who cannot read, he learns that Rosaline will be there, hoping to get Rosaline back, Romeo goes to the party. But when he gets there, all he sees is the fair Juliet. Rosaline is never in the Party scene and there is no evidence that she even attended the party, only that she was invited. I look forward to the rest of your argument, as well as your rebuttle and concluding statement.
Who is responsible for the Death's of Romeo and Juliet.

My, thank you for accepting in a timely mannor, and it is nice to see you getting back into the whole debating thing insted of answering polls all day. First off I must say Everyone in the play of Romeo and Juliet is responsible for their deaths, even Paris. Through out the play, you can tie most everything together starting off with the fight (fued) between the two house's (Capulet and Montague), next step was simple, Lord Montague giveing the serving boy (Whom cannot read) the letter with the invitations to the party which was given to him by Lord Montague- (Act 1 Scene 2), of which through this letter Romeo finds out that Roseiline will be there, in such he attends, focourse he wouldnt get their with out the help of Mercutio and Benvolio. Once getting to the party he finds his belovied Roseiline with another man throwing him into a despare; and then after a split second he sees Juliet, her stunning looks capture him imedietly. Second, mid way through the party Lord Montague gets word that Romeo is there; but he does nothing of which possibly if he was to have he may have stopped the connection between Romeo and Juliet but scence he didnt it was too late. Now lets skip ahead a little to Romeo and Juliet going to the Friar (Lawerance) of which highly encourages them to stay together which is by no means a good idea, and once Juliet goes home she head strait to the Nurse seeking her help whom also ends up encraging the "get-together" of Romeo and Juliet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'll leave it there for now being constricted on time but tomarrow the winner shall be decided. Or over the next week you know, how ever long it takes I mean no rush.
Who is responsible for the Death's of Romeo and Juliet.

I accept your challenge IALWAYSWINDEBATES, hopefully this will turn out better than our last debate. Who is responsible for the deaths of romeo and juliet? That is a very complicated question with no clear answer, you could find evidence in the script that supports anyone being at least partially at fault (exept paris, he was I think the one innocent person in the play.). So I'll just argue that everyone (exept paris) shares some of the responsibility for the deaths of either romeo, juliet or both. Your argument please.
General McChrystal's fate should have been decided by the joint chiefs of staff not the president

To avoid confusion i am putting pros quotes in <<, and my sources quotes in parentheses. < > Yes this is very important, in America we have a concept called Civilian Control of the Military, "Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers. "(1) < > No, The current military structure was defined in the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 (2) Section 151 sub-section B states their functions as advisors to the president. The remainder of section 151 describes the individual functions and how the joint chiefs should achieve the above goal. Section 155 sub-section e goes on to state "The Joint Staff shall not operate or be organized as an overall Armed Forces General Staff and shall have no executive authority." < > this is an argument i did not make. <> Uniform code of Military Justice Section 804 Article 4 (3) "If any commissioned officer, dismissed by order of the president, makes a written application for trial by court-martial setting forth under oath, that he has been wrongfully dismissed, the President, as soon as practicable, shall convene a general court-martial to try that officer on the charges on which he was dismissed." General McChrystal did not submit an application for a court martial so none is necessary. In this round i have demonstrated that the president had the authority within the US military, and the Joint chiefs do not. This is in agreement with a fundamental american principal, civilian control over military. 1)http://en.wikipedia.org... 2)http://www.jcs.mil... 3)http://www.au.af.mil... (look at the first section {801.1} and follow the link to 804.4)
General McChrystal's fate should have been decided by the joint chiefs of staff not the president

I may have taken me sometime to get to my point, but it is clear that I was expressing, that the joint chiefs have more experience in the matter and are part of the military chain of command. The president is not a commissioned officer, he has received no formal military education, the title is a reflection of the fact that he exerts a certain amount of control over the military. Whether the decision would be the same or different is not what is important, it is the fact that a politician can forge military policy and fire and hire whoever he see's fit. There was no trial, no defense, no oversight of any kind. The joint chiefs are in the structure of the military and are the direct superior of all generals, they know who has the skills and capabilities to execute the strategy, they also would require a court-marshal for any offense a 4 star general was accused of, not a closed door shake down. I support the president in many issues, but he has no military experience, he should delegate decisions he does not fully comprehend to those in his cabinet that do, such as the joint chiefs. In the comments section someone also brought to my attention the clause of the constitution that supposedly gives the president this authority, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." where in the above quote does it suggest he has the authority to dismiss and officer without trial I would like Con to tell me where he derives the authority to do this. A trial would at least give the general the ability to defend his comments and position in front of a jury of his peers. Even when a superior officer dismisses a lower officer there is a trial or at the very least a review.
General McChrystal's fate should have been decided by the joint chiefs of staff not the president

First i would like to respond to pros arguments. 1. "While the president is technically the commander and chief, this term was created for the first president George Washington under the assumption that any man to hold the office would have some military experience" First, i saw nothing in the article about the term being created by George Washington, or under the assumption that the president has military experience, but for arguments sake i will except these facts. Second, so what? the president is the head of the military, whether he should be or not is irrelevant. 2. "It is wrong for the president to simply dismiss a highly respected general in a closed meeting with no transparency as to its contents." This sounds like you just don't like his decision, i fail to see how this applies to having the joint chiefs make the decision. 3."On to my main point, The president is motivated by political reasons, not tactical or military reasons." Do you have any evidence to support this, as you (and General McChrystal) agreed he is guilty of challenging authority publicly, I'm not an expert on psychology, but what would it do to the military to have the leading general publicly attack the president. Also, this debate is not about whether the president was right or wrong, it is about if the decision was his of the joint chiefs. 4."The joint chiefs who are career military men would be better able to analyze the possible tactical ramifications of dismissing a highly respected general without regard to political influences." The US military reports to civilian authority, and this debate is not about who about who should have athority in general, it is about who should have made the decision in this one instance. 5. "It is wrong also to simply fire those who disagree with you" A) True, but in the military it is wrong not to dismiss somebody who publicly attacks a superior officer, if this type of thing had happened with any of general McChrystalls soldiers, as an experienced military man, he would have dismissed them. B) President Obama agreed with all of Chrystal policy, and if he did not than he should have replaced him long ago C) This debate is not about if he made the correct decision. I have seen no argument from pro to support his resolution, and i ask him to keep his arguments more on topic.
General McChrystal's fate should have been decided by the joint chiefs of staff not the president

The argument was detailed in the title, but I will write it out again for the sake of it Argument- General McChrystal's fate should have been decided by the joint chiefs of staff not the president Definitions(if any are needed) Joint Chiefs of staff-is a group of military leaders in the United States armed forces who advise the civilian government of the United States I will take the Pro It was recently decided by the President of the United States to relieve general Stanly McChrystal of command of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. While I personally think this was a bad decision, that is not the focus of this debate, the focus is if he had the right to do that. While the president is technically the commander and chief, this term was created for the first president George Washington under the assumption that any man to hold the office would have some military experience(1). This has proven over the years to be untrue, not all presidents have had military experience. I am not trying to say the president has no control over the military but I believe he is stepping over the boundary between the two. All military law is governed by the Uniform Code Of Military Justice(UCMJ), it is an established code of conduct and justice all members regardless of branch must follow. Insubordination is refusal by a subordinate to obey lawful orders given by a commissioned officer or non commissioned officer and there are also several other criteria(2). General McChrystal is guilty of this charge, but it should be dealt with in military circles, he is entitled to a court-marshal to see if he is indeed guilty of this crime, he is entitled to have a defense consul appointed for him. It is wrong for the president to simply dismiss a highly respected general in a closed meeting with no transparency as to its contents. On to my main point, The president is motivated by political reasons, not tactical or military reasons. The general is not disobeying an order or failing to accomplish any goals, he is in reality exceeding most expectations put on him. The joint chiefs who are career military men would be better able to analyze the possible tactical ramifications of dismissing a highly respected general without regard to political influences. It is wrong also to simply fire those who disagree with you, if everyone blindly followed orders for fear of dismissal or even death, we would have more holocaust type situations where officers were given the choice of "do what i say or im going to kill you". (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://usmilitary.about.com...
PC is better than console

I apologize for my rudeness, but, did you read anything I said? This is why we call many console players console peasants. You guys are rather similar to SJWs. You don't be quiet and listen. Now, hopefully, you shall actually listen to me-hopefully, you needed some rudeness in order to listen. Look up "$400 gaming PC 2018." Look up, "Potato Masher Pro" as well. Now we have the price out of the way, consoles are usually cheaper, but with fewer benefits. Look at it this way, would you rather have a job and you get paid $80,000 a year, or have the same job but get paid $50,000 a year, but you get 3 fancy meals a day and a nice house as benefits. Exactly, the second job is obviously the better choice. So now we have that out of the way, we shall talk performance. Most builds will have graphics cards around the power of a GTX 1050 Ti. According to UserBenchmark, a GTX 1050 Ti will get 61.1 frames per second at 1080p high settings on average with the benchmarks. A GTX 1050 will get 56.7 frames per second at 1080p high settings. Now, your control device preference. Right now, on my desk, believe it or not, I have a controller, and a mouse and keyboard! And, on top of that, I DON'T PLAY ON A CONSOLE. So why do I have an Xbox One controller on my desk? Because I can actually use it on my PC. Believe it or not, you can use a controller with your PC. AND, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD A PROGRAM THAT LETS YOU FULLY USE YOUR CONTROLLER ON YOUR PC. WOW, MIND BLOWN! You say you have been a PC player? Probably not. Also, yes, while it is true that you can use a keyboard with your console, maybe we should add that $90-$300 adapter that allows you to use it for the total price of the PS4, while the only thing I need is a $2 MicroUSB cable or if I want wireless that badly, a $25 adapter. Also, yes, you can use a PS4 controller as well. Not only that, PC keyboards and mice and even third-party controllers can often times be cheaper than a console controller.
PC is better than console

First of all, good PC for playing costs around 900USD, when we can buy PS4 for 400USD(I have been in mall this weekends). Do you want to buy PC for 400USD and play GTA San Andreas while I am playing GTA V? Since I have been a gamer for several years with both of PC and PS, I can strongly argue that PS4/X-box's joysticks are comfortable than PC's keyboard. Also, you can plug on your keyboard to console and play as PC.
PC is better than console

Alright. Since your argument is based on price, we shall begin with that. What would be cheaper, buying an Xbox One day one or buying a PC day one? We will not include games although games are typically cheaper on PC (but that is a different argument). Online subscriptions such as Xbox Live Gold will be included because it is part of their strategy. They are confident that when you buy an Xbox One (doesn't have much markup) that you will buy a subscription, which is what makes them a lot of money. Now, let us begin. As you may or not know, the Xbox One at day one was $500. So that is $500 to our list. The years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 required an Xbox Live Gold subscription for the full experience. That is $360 in total. So now we are at $860 as our goal price. First is the video card. The Xbox One's GPU is about as powerful as the RX 550. You can make this into a GTX 560 Ti. At this time, you could find one for $179.99. Or, you could buy a GTX 660 Ti for $210-$250 around this time. Now, even with this data-for GPU's in these kinds of comparisons eat most of the price up, you can literally find yourself $860 dollars of parts from 2013 that beat, tie or even slightly get beaten by the Xbox One. I don't even need to explain the rest, the GPU part settles it. There were nice AMD processors back around that time for $150ish. My sources are UserBenchMark and CamelCamelCamel.
This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use mobile phones.

Obviously, when I said that you are a beginner or you are using fake account, I was referring to this site (debate.org) You said you are not a beginner and been doing debate for 1 year now. But here is the evidence that you are lying. You just joined 1 week ago. Otherwise, you are using a fake account. Also, instead of posting your argument in this debate, you promoted your other debate. Hilarious! To the actual debate: You have never rebutted a single argument I presented, so they remain in good standing in this debate. Worse, your arguments are very broad. Instead of focusing on the use of mobile phones by children, you attacked instead the use of cellphones in general and for everyone. Apparently, you became after abolishing phones. You disregarded the spirit of this debate, hence, your arguments are worthless. With your logic, all technologies would need to be abolished. This is patently ridiculous! This is not debate. Clearly, I won this debate.
This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use mobile phones.

Parameters: Definition- Children- the legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.[1] Mobile Phones- A mobile phone (also known as a cellular phone, cell phone, hand phone, or simply a phone) is a phone that can make and receive telephone calls over a radio link while moving around a wide geographic area. [2] Position It is my stand that children should be allowed to own and use phones whether at home or at school Arguments: Safety- Children who have phones can easily contact or contacted by their parents in case something wrong happened to children like being kidnapped, lost, terrorist threats, fire, etc.,. For example, using the GPS features of a phone will locate the missing child. A service like Sprint Family Locator can easily locate the whereabouts of anyone as said Danny Bowman, vice president of product marketing for Sprint.[3] Similarly, a child who owns a phone can save or help a person. For example, A 2-year-old Houston girl is being credited with saving her mother s life after using a cell phone to call for help when she collapsed.[4] A certain Larissa Taylor was on her bed lying and not breathing, her 2-year-old daughter used a phone to call her grandmother.[5] Consequently, Larissa Taylor was brought to the hospital and she survived.[6] In this case, knowledge on how to use phones played an important role in saving a person’s life. This can happen to anyone, so it is better to allow children to own and use phones. Convenience- Parents will always want to talk to their children. But how can they talk or communicate to them when the latter do not own a mobile phone? By allowing children to own and use phones, their parents can easily tell them that their schedule has changed or tell them (children) that their parents love them. This things maybe simple but there are still important. Not allowing the child to own and use a phone will just make things complicated for everyone. Social Inclusion- Friendships are created and cemented by way of communicating. Personal is the best form of communication, but it cannot always be the case. When friends are not together in the same place, the best way for them to remain in connection with each other is through the use of mobile phones. In fact, this is already the trend. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 85% of children aged 14-17 already have cell phones. Even 69% of 11-14 year olds have cell phones. Many of these children keep in contact with their peers through messaging, texting, and calling in a way that facilitates their inclusion in social interactions.[7] Sources: [1] "Child". TheFreeDictionary.com. Retrieved January 5, 2013. [2] Mobile phone. http://en.wikipedia.org.... [3] http://www.sheknows.com... [4] [5] [6] 2-year-old Houston girl uses cell phone to save mother's life. http://www.khou.com... [7] Mcmahon, L. (2013, Octorber 4). The Benefits of Giving Your Child a Cell Phone. Retrieved from http://www.howtolearn.com...
Issue

Thanks Issue, This should be engaging and fun. Lets take on the existence of Global Warming. I propose that Global Warming exists and can be impiracally observed, measured and emphatically proven. Furthermore I propose that statements to the contrary are in fact, statements of faith, not based on evidence, but based sole on hope and paranoia about the scientific community. For my oppening statements, I would like to submit the following as evidence supporting my claim. 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature. Recently the IPCC reported that a vast majority of scientists in fields that study Climate change are in concensus that not only is Global Warming a reality, but that is effected by human means. Not being meteriorolgists I propose that it is reasonable and responsible for my opponent and I to conceed expertise to those who have spent years in school studying the earth and the climate. I look forward to a response.
stay at home moms should be paid.

To reiterate my previous points, I shall quote Salary.com's writer "Aaron Gouveia" "Stay-at-home moms work an average of 94 hours per week for a total estimated 'mom salary' of $113,586 a year" [2]. Unless you are opposed to the ethics of people being paid, ethically moms should be paid.Sources:[2] http://www.salary.com...
stay at home moms should be paid.

Morally they should be paid signifigantly, I mean it is the world's hardest job [1].Next up your argument is ripe with holes, to start..."i dont think mom should be paid to stay at home with your kids"To start, my kids does not imply her kids. That is called a nanny, many of who are mothers spending time away from their own kids (apparently to take care of mine). This is a job they will need to be paid for, unless they have been kidnapped, which is a serious crime.Sources:[1] YouTube video http://www.youtube.com...