BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The collective is more important than an individual

In a community there will be people who cannot keep up as well as others. For example in a classroom. In an intermediate math class, for example, there are 20 students. 8 are top students who never need help. 11 are intermediate students that sometimes need help. Then there is 1 student that has no idea what he is doing and needs help all the time. So then the teacher has to spend all the time with the 1 student whilst the other 11 students also need help. The obvious thing to do is to put that 1 student who is not qualified enough to be in the intermediate class into the beginners group. Not only for the good of the community but also for his own good. Sometimes, it is good for the community to get rid of the person that obstructs the vision of the future, but at the same time it is also god for the person to have gone out.
The collective is more important than an individual

I will argue that the collective is as important as the individual and that individuals should have independence from the collective."...if everybody takes are about just one person, the resources for the rest will be limited." While it is true that a feudal system only takes care of the nobles, it is important to note the difference in ownership, fairness and freedom of today from the beginnings of the industrial revolution. The other extreme of this argument would be total communism, which would actually disincentivize labour. "Why should I put more effort, if whatever work I do I always get the same?"Another example, "Let's say that you are in a community and you get shot...", you go to a hospital and in the hospital there are 2 persons that just lost a different leg, 2 that are missing opposite arms, and several that have overcome diseases but are now in need of an organ transplant. There is no way for them to get everything they need. Voila! You just walked in and they decide to saw you down to save everyone else.There is also a need for diversification, the group should promote uniqueness between its individuals, even at the risk of criticism or lack of unity. This include "Freedom of Assembly, Association, Choice, Education, Information, Movement, Press, Religion, Public speech, and Thought", which allows individuals to stir the collective and provide protections for doing so. For example, when Judaism split and Christianity was born.
The collective is more important than an individual

The collective is more important than the individual because if everybody takes are about just one person, the resources for the rest will be limited. Let's say that you are in a community and you get shot. The amount of medicine is limited and there are many people who have minor injuries. If every resource is used for you exclusively, the other people that have minor injuries will not be cured, therefore even if you are saved the will be other people who's injury will get worse. That is why the group is more important than just one individual.
PC gaming is superior to console gaming.

Con appears to be confused about what they are arguing. I'm going to assume Con's first sentence was a typo and continue the debate as best I can. The console game industry may make more money but that doesn't effect me as a consumer. As a consumer who doesn't gain anything from the money made by Xbox or Sony, my PC is superior because the average age of PC gamers is 37 years old. This translates to better team mates with lower pitched voices and less crying. I also don't have to pay Microsoft to use their network. I pay for my internet access one time and poof, like magic, I can play my games online. There aren't any variety of games that can't be played on PC. Where are the MMOs on consoles? Oops they don't exist. Left4dead2 still costs 30 bucks on Xbox. I can get it for 4.99 on PC. I also get to play games that are still under development on PC through beta invites. There are thousands of independent developers on PC that make great games that will never be available on consoles. PC paves the path, consoles follow. PCs are clearly superior to consoles unless you are 5 years old and they are too complicated for you.
PC gaming is superior to console gaming.

I would like to attack my opponents case that console is better then pc.The gaming industry in the U.S gets 21.3 millon dollars then the pc industry.The console gaming allows you to be able to more advantage s like you are able to play a way more variety of games just from your own console. Consoles do not damage easily from downloads and software and can be kept for a very long time.Consoles are also more cheaper to buy while a computer can cost about 650 or up.Pc is good but not a superior.In this argument console attack s my opponents case. Rebuttal "Thanks to steam Pc is more affordable" Steam is just something that makes it cheaper so thats not really the original price. "I can do any other awesome thing outside of pc" This does not show how pc beats console. "The derexabilty means mouse no autimatic so most games are playable" On consoles you can do the same with a controler.
The world will not end in 2012

December 21 2012 was the Aztec date of end of the world, all other predetermined end of the world date's were not by Aztecs. Your example raised was one of the same individual lying repeatedly, this is a totally different source telling you another date.You cannot tell God's will if you aren't even God so that point was irrelevant (I am reinstating this to show how you never met your BOP)
The world will not end in 2012

Pretend someone told you yo were gonna die on January 6 2009. Would you be anticipating it waiting for it to happen? I would. January 6 2009 comes, you aren't dead. You go back to that person and say "Look at me I'm fine. I'm not dead." That person goes "Oh, I got it wrong you are gonna die November 2 2011" You wold probably be anticipating that too right? I would. And this keeps happening a few more times. You are dumb enough to keep believing her. And the final time it happens she says you are going to die October 30 1012. Ho would you react? Are you finally smart enough to see she's lying, or are you going to fall for it again?
The world will not end in 2012

Scientists said that the world was going to end in 2000 and many other times before that. Yet,we are still here! Now they are saying it will end just because the yan calendar stops on December 21 2012 does not mean that the world will end. It's jut not true. If the world were going to end anyways, it would end when the presidential election results came out. But I don't believe it will end in December. If God wanted it to, he would have gotten it done already
An anarchist society should at least be given a try

To begin, I would ask that my opponent define what they think an anarchist society entails. Just for the sake of clarity. But nonetheless, I will argue against basic anarchism. The idea that power in a society is to be given to a group of people is way too risky. I don't deny the possibility that under the right circumstances it could work, but under the circumstances we face today, the current state of our country, it would be impossible and completely detrimental to the US. Our constitution was set into place to limit our government, but never to rid of it. The constitution was meant to ensure that power is distributed among the people and much as possible. Anarchism is a pandoras box which could very well lead to much loss of life and simple basic rights. We would lose the ability to control those who rule our country. What if an anarchist gained power and decided to kill every family that didn't vaccinate their children? A simple disagreement could lead to drastic consequences that I, nor would anyone want to risk.
An anarchist society should at least be given a try

I'm arguing for that an anarchist society should be given a try. My opponent will argue they should never be attemptedRules of Debate:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, insults2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus one since I am not using argument for debate.3) The last round used for argument should only be rebuttals/defense and/or conclusions. No new arguments in this last round. New facts and information can be given, but only in response to your opponent's claims
Sodahead is cheap

Thanks again to my opponent, however I am not sure what your point is yet again.The Youtube video linked was just the founders explaining how they are making the website easier to link to from other news sites. This is an advantage that they are/were implementing so it seems they are being helpful and not liars?In this debate, I have effectively refuted all of Pros argument and shown that Sodahead is in fact not cheap.Now I hand the debate over to the voters.
Sodahead is cheap

My opponent wanted me to clarify the following point.In the last round when my opponent wrote "The only good thing about it (and I'm conceding as this is just a side note) is that you don't have to pay for it,"what they meant to say was"The only good thing about it (and I'm not conceding as this is just a side note) is that you don't have to pay for it,"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThanks to my opponent.Firstly, I think we need to be frank that the proposition of this debate seems more to be a rant (or a vendetta) against some people that my opponent disagrees with.I completely disagree with my opponent when they say cheap means "a very lie -filled organization". However, to prove that your opinion on Sodahead is biased, I will use your two sources presented which paint a very different picture to what you say about the moderators at Sodahead.The first complaint says the following:"A diatribe of the deranged, Sodahead is the default home of left-wing bias and propaganda.........The socialist rhetoric......liberals make great pets but lousy site designers"(1)The second complaint says the following:"It's a right winged site and if you don't hate Obama, women's rights, and if you aren't a Christian, you get deactivated......The right blocks you from commenting........ right to come in and attack the left, ...... "(2)So what is it right or left? Is it liberal or is it not? And the questions keep mounting. All these complaints show that various people have various opinions.In conclusion, my opponent has disproved their own argument and as such the contention that Sodahead is cheap (the definition provided by my opponent I reject) on any level is blatantly false as I have sufficiently demonstrated.I hand the debate back to my opponent for their closing statements.(1) http://www.complaintsboard.com...(2) http://www.complaintsboard.com...
Sodahead is cheap

I don't mean cheap in that way, but rather than Sodahead has a very lie-filled organization. Well for one, many of the users (not all though) are backstabbers. They pretend to be your friend only to block you if you don't impress them or agree with their bigoted views. Another is that the head of the site, Michael Glazer, who doesn't even put this in his rules, will ban you for not agree with the views of the site. So yes in that way it's a cheap fraud. The only good thing about it (and I'm conceding as this is just a side note) is that you don't have to pay for it, because if I did, I'd really be in steaming heat. But Sodahead is a fraud that deserved to be banned off the internet for ripping people off who don't agree with the majority view. A similar thing can be said about Funadvice, whos mod, Jeremy Goodrich, is even more of a bastard than Glazer (as I had the unfortunate position of having to deal with his abusive emails). Sodahead should have a different mod or they should be kicked out if he's gonna be a tyrant. One of the two.http://www.complaintsboard.com...http://www.complaintsboard.com...It's a real shame, cause badass users, like this tomboy homie of mine from England http://www.sodahead.com...Have to put up with this crap!
Sodahead is cheap

It seems my opponent didn't close his account but was on a temporary ban. So welcome back and lets get this debate moving along.As I have stated previously Sodahead is not cheap, and this can be verified when we consider that Sodahead has an investment of 12.7 million USD.(1) This means that to my opponent 12.7 million USD dollars is cheap. My opponent in fact needs to demonstrate why this amount of money is cheap to win this debate. Also, it is important to realize that this investment money is private money and so this money does not come from floating the company on the stock market.In fact if Sodahead is such a cheap website, then why does it garner 4.3 million unique hits in America alone per month and 7.0 million globally.(2) Surely these statistics demonstrate largely that Sodahead is anything but cheap.I now hand the debate back to my opponent who will try demonstrate why Sodahead is cheap.(1) http://www.crunchbase.com...(2) https://www.quantcast.com...
Video Games Are the best and can help you learn

Video games result in people spending more time playing them rarther than school work and or education work/purposes. It can also lead to anti-social behaviour in some cases although this is not always the case. "you might be losing a couple of brain cells but you also gain more hand skill. I see why you are against them but try it your reflexes will get faster and you will see some hand, eye coordination growth." - ProOne major issue with this claim is that having relfexes is better than having braincells that help your head function which is a lie as the more braincells you lose the more disabilities you will end up picking up thus videogames over time can lead to some serious issues. As for eye coordination perhaps this is true but staring at a screen for huge amounts of time can cause serious eye damage and because of this gaming companies actually acknoledge this and offer things like Gunnars which are made to give your eyes more protection. If people are making classes to protect your eyes while gaming then I ask how can it help with eye coordination? Perhaps you can spot things in the game easier but in real life your causing serious damage to your eyes.Furthermore videosgames are fun but often lead to more disadvantages than advantages for a majority of people and it can also ruin your education which is vital for life skills and career goals. In terms of "Videos Games are the best and can help you learn" I would say that Card Games and Tabletop games are superior to video games as they teach you to be more social with people in person and often doesn't result in educational drops.Sources:http://www.raisesmartkid.com...http://www.parentingscience.com...
Video Games Are the best and can help you learn

Video Games are fun and they in fact are more helpful than you think. I get why some people think they harm your brain but indeed that is true but they also help your brain. If you play a video game like first person shooters they in fact will corrupt your mind and you will lose brain cells, but they also help increase hand, eye coordination and reflexes. Some video games are actually meant for educational purposes but think about it you might be losing a couple of brain cells but you also gain more hand skill. I see why you are against them but try it your reflexes will get faster and you will see some hand, eye coordination growth.
Video Games Are the best and can help you learn

Videos games are fun but are they good? They are good in terms of enjoying yourself and relaxing but they are not good for educational purposes. While there are educational video games they are lacking compared to the overall gaming industry and gaming itself actually harms education more than you think. Video games keep people up at night which likely results in poor homework as more time is devoted to them. In other words I accept this debate (I have nothing against video games hell I enjoy them but they are not a good thing in terms of education and health)
Cut school days for the good of america

Yeah. Our school system is very flawed. Many schools have poor quality, mean/lazy teachers etc. This does need to change. I think that our we needs to do a lot better with the hiring of teachers. And it's not fair how schools in richer neighborhoods get to have a better education. It's unfair and something needs to be done. I am also in high school, and all of my teachers are dedicated, kind, patient, and actually care about their jobs. So, that can go both ways. So, personal experiences should remain out of this. There are of course, many flaws within our school system that need to change. But once again, cutting the amount of days/hours won't be helping any. If anything, it will be doing us harm. We just need a better structure, and more dedication.
Cut school days for the good of america

Yeah, I don't think cutting the number of school days will be doing any real good. America's school system is already below that of many of our most similar nations. I think the 5 day school week, is about fair. Kids need to be exposed to repetition in order to learn. 3 days a week? That gives us 4 days of nothing. And what about all the children out there who depend on school lunches? And, cutting teacher's pay is not a good choice. Teachers are so important for a good nation. They already get payed poorly. And it's up to them to teach our next generations. There are plenty of budget cuts that should be made, the school system is not one of those things.
Ronald Reagan hurt America, more than he helped it.

My opponent has effectively conceded my main arguments. 1. Reagan's tax cuts did spur the economy and raise government revenue 2. Reagan pushed through key economic reforms that brought about the end of stagflation and the birth of a prolonged period of economic growth 3. America's interventionist attitude towards foreign policy was well-established before Reagan Ronald Reagan was not a perfect president, especially on foreign policy. However, his foreign policy did not directly lead to the American intervention during the first Gulf War. Intervening there was Mr. Bush's prerogative. 9/11 was the end result of foreign policy blunders that mostly occurred after Reagan. These are not Reagan's children, and my opponent has more or less acknowledged this. His claim that Reagan indirectly contributed to this is like claiming that Kennedy was less responsible for Vietnam than Eisenhower. Moreover, my opponent has acknowledged that the economic woes of today are not the result primarily of the budget deficits that emerged under Reagan's administration. The monetary policies of the federal reserve during the 90's and early 21st century are more to blame. So, as my opponent says, this is a balancing decision. I would argue that a rebounded economy that improved the lives of millions of Americans as a DIRECT result of Reagan's policies, along with the pro-free market mentality he helped usher around the world outweighs the foreign problems he contributed to- problems that have impacted foreigners in certain countries far more than they have Americans. For the American people, Reagan was a net positive.
Why the focus should be on economy , not the debt when it comes to the federal budget

.. As the con side it falls on me to show why the debt that a nation owes others is one of the most important aspects in regards to federal budget and shall elaborate on the following: If you take the nation to be a person, debt would be what the first priority would be considered. No nation should think they have disposable income until they have paid off their debts. Until debts are paid off, there might as well not be a federal budget, it is the deciding factor. Thank you.
Why the focus should be on economy , not the debt when it comes to the federal budget

.. As the pro side it falls on me to show why the economy is more important debt when comes to federal budget so in order to do this I will: 1. Talk about the history of our national debt and why the actual number doesn't really matter 2. Talk about how spending cuts in a not all thought out ways can hurt the economy 3. Why economic growth makes debt a secondary 4. And the positives impact a economic focus budget can have on the country and it's debt
Should Hillary be a nominee for President

Remember that this is not a debate about whether Hillary is electable as U.S. President in 2016. And it is not a debate about whether she would even secure the democratic primary nomination. This is a debate about whether she should even be a nominee in the first place. My opponent refers to Hillary's scandals. What politician at that level of federal scrutiny for that many years does not have their share of scandals tarnishing their names? Very few, indeed. Also, my opponent seems not to have gotten the "down-low" on Benghazi. This was a presidential (Obama-led), high-level deception that would not acknowledge that terrorism had occurred. I would recommend reading the book, Blood Feud, or you can check out the following New York Post which should adequately catch you up to speed. [1] In short, Hillary was attempting to deal with the situation as a terrorist attack but Obama wanted the Clintons to spin a different story to the media and make it look like some extremist Muslims were reacting to an Internet video mocking the prophet, Mohammed. I agree with my opponent that Hillary is not a feminist. She has so many corporations backing and funding her that she probably would not bother even trying to level out the male-female wage gap or increase the minimum wage to a living wage. While she may not be the world's best candidate, she does have way more experience as a statesman than most of the other Democratic candidates who are going to run in 2016. She should definitely not be the candidate with the most integrity but due to her level of experience, she should be allowed to be a nominee. [1] http://nypost.com...
Should Hillary be a nominee for President

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State is now and has been running for President of the 2016 presidential term. The initial response was mixed, with democrats that enjoyed the Clintonian era to people questioning the integrity of the Clinton family. With the Benghazi scandal and now the email scandal emerging, is it right to choose her for president. As part of the Clinton family she has already raised eyebrows as a candidate, but with two scandals even before the election there is strong reason to believe it will only go downhill from there. Hillary is so far left and liberal that she cannot see the other side, and although she claims to be a "feminist" or stand for equality she is really not for equality but moreover a women dominated society. So Hillary 2016? I guarantee she will not have MY vote nor the vote of any rational adult.