BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The TRIPS agreement is unfair.

Note: This debate should be impossible to accept. If you find a clever way to work around the rules, you automatically forfeit all seven points. If you would like to debate, please say so in the comments after reading this opening round.IntroductionThis will be the first serious debate I've had in a while. Okay, I understated that. This will be the first serious debate I've had since Summer 2012. Therefore, I hope this will go well.I plan to start this on 9th May, 2015, and hope to find an opponent by then. As I wish to have a serious opponent, I will only accept an opponent who has finished at least one debate with serious discussion. It does not have to be won; it only has to display that you are genuinely capable of proper debate. However, to prevent noob-sniping, I will also not accept members with very high ELO. I will put a lot of effort into the debate, so it will also take a lot of effort for you to take my arguments apart. I also don't have high ELO. If you want to noob-snipe my debate, I assure you that the yields will not be proportional to the effort required. You may have better luck noob-sniping 1000-character debates.As such, I would prefer an opponent with ELO between 2000 and 3500, but that is not set in stone - it is simply a general rule.ResolutionThe full resolution is just this: 'Resolved: The TRIPS agreement is unfair.' I know this is vague, and will welcome suggestions to change it, but please read my rationale for choosing this statement first.I know the statement is vague, for fairness is subjective. Some would call progressive tax unfair. Others would say flat tax is unfair. The problem is, if I make the resolution more concrete, it will likely be biased towards either Pro or Con. For example, if I said 'Resolved: The TRIPS agreement is detrimental to developing countries', it would be much easier for me to argue, but then again, it would be unfair for the other side.Rules1. Debate structure:R1: Con posts opening arguments or accepts.R2-3: Arguments and rebuttals. If Con posted opening arguments in R1, he or she should also post his or her conclusion here.R4: Arguments and conclusion. If Con posted opening arguments in R1, he or she should waive this round.2. No trolling, no semantics, no kritiks (although I don't see how that's possible in this debate).3. In general, all arguments should be posted inside the debate, but if you are really busy, I will accept arguments posted in the comments shortly after your forfeiture of the round.4. BOP is shared. Pro argues that it is unfair. Con argues that it is fair.Good luck!
Montu vs Sheikra which is better? (Mpntu-Pro Sheikra-Con)

Inversions Sheikra barely has any inversions, unlike Montu which consists of loops, corkscrew, and many others. In my opinion, the more inversions the better after all that is what gets your adrenaline pumping in line. The nervousness of whether or not you should ride it depends on the inversions most of the time. Speed As I stated before, I felt like the speed was more greatly appreciated in Montu because you actually felt the speed when in Sheikra the speed was at the drop which one does not appreciate because all your thinking about is well the drop. Overall, both rollercoasters are really great. However, I feel like Montu is superior due to the amount of adrenaline, speed, and most of all inversions.
Montu vs Sheikra which is better? (Mpntu-Pro Sheikra-Con)

Adrenaline I felt more adrenaline when riding Montu than riding Sheikra. True they both give you a rush, but when riding Montu I was breathless with all the inversions, yet with Sheikra the only adrenaline felt is when hanging off the ledge which not all rows get to do. Speed Even though Sheikra is faster by 10 mph, I felt that the speed was more greatly appreciated in Montu. I await my opponents argument. (BTW I'm a girl)
Montu vs Sheikra which is better? (Mpntu-Pro Sheikra-Con)

My position is that Montu is a much better ride than Sheikra at Busch Gardens(in Tampa not sure if there is another Busch Garden but just in case). http://video.google.com...# http://www.youtube.com... As you can see, the Montu is superior because it has a lot more inversions. There are corkscrews, loops, etc. The only exciting thing about Sheikra is the 90 degree drop.
Abortion (See for scenario)

Thanks for the quick acceptance Defro, and voters thanks for reading.So, in order to show why the woman in this scenario must go through the shame/embarrassment of carrying a rape-baby for 9 months, I will need to show why we must consider abortion a worse option than the whole shame/embarrassment deal. Killing and AbortionI will not be ranting on about how soon babies do this and that and how they have human DNA and blah blah blah. Obviously trying to argue over whether or not an unborn baby qualifies as a life is a very old argument, and whenever the argument is revived between two debaters no ground is taken or lost. Hopefully the following will be a fresher argument.When you kill someone, you end their life (duh), and take away their future. When you abort an unborn human you (according to the popular Pro-Abortion view) do not end a life, but you still are taking away the possibility for their future. Whether or not you think abortion is killing, you should be able to see that killing and abortion accomplish the same thing: they take away life in the future. They both steal. And if we can see that abortion and killing accomplish the same thing, we should be able to realize that both carry the same moral consequences/implications, and therefore should be treated as the same thing. Choice in AbortionPro-Abortionists also call themselves Pro-Choice because it sounds nice and they believe that a woman can do what she wants with her body, that whether or not to abort is completely her choice. But what about the unborn's choice? Yeah, seriously. I realize that we can't lean up next to a woman's bulging preggers stomach and ask, "Well what do you want us to do with you Mr. Baby?" However, we can go and ask people who weren't aborted (and then obviously can speak) if they would've been ok with being aborted years back. What's the answer 99% of the time? 'No'. That should be obvious. It's the same as being asked if you wanted to die. Most people don't want to cease to exist, and so it would be unfair to not take this into consideration in regards to abortion. Even though we can't ask the baby, through logic we can infer what his answer will be 999/1000 times. And if we can infer his answer, how can we act like the mom is only person with the choice? And if we have to compare which of these two choices take precedence, and if we look at my first section, we realize that the choice that involves staying 'alive' takes precedence over a choice regarding (in this scenario) a person's comfort.RecapNow having established that abortion accomplishes the same thing as killing, and therefore should be regarded as such, and having established that we know what the baby's choice would be if we could ask, let's weigh the evils here. On one hand we've got a woman's discomfort versus what accomplishes the same thing as killing, robbing her unborn child of a life. Clearly it would suck to have to bear a rape-baby, but it is the lesser evil when compared to stealing that zygote's life waiting for it. Thanks for reading.
Abortion (See for scenario)

I accept.In the comment section, Con has allowed me to set the time limit for abortion.Therefore, I will set the time limit to 3 weeks, while it is still a zygote.Zygote (noun): A cell in diploid state following fertilization or union of haploid male sex cell (e.g. sperm) and haploid female sex cell (e.g. ovum).http://www.biology-online.org... State your case.
PETA is bad.

They fight for animal rights yes but to this they also want everyone to change their ways. Not eat meat, not wear or use anything that is made with animals skin or fur. Destroy zoos, bring down farms such as my own etc. Once again, they have good intentions but they are not just trying to fight for animal rights, they are also trying to get all of us to change the way we live if they are ever to get everything they want. And it would effect all of us in some way.
PETA is bad.

I would agree with you farm animals should be allowed to be kept, but I disagree with your later statements. PETA is an organization: a group of people. They themselves don't take care of animals, they just fight for animal rights. I don't know where the information you gathered about animals dying in PETA's care came from, considering they don't keep or rescue animals. Furthermore, for information you gather I would like to see a source since I have no way of knowing where you got your 'facts' from.
PETA is bad.

I guess PETA isn't exactly bad. .. they have good intentions. I love animals. But some of the things PETA tries to fight for is just stupid. I live on a dairy farm and according to their website we are a bunch of monsters that abuse and "rape" our cows to get their milk. They say that we don't even allow baby calves to walk to their own "prisons". We also have beef cattle and if you take a look at the beef industry page on the PETA website you would see that they have a holstine dairy cow on their beef page. They could at least get their arguments straight. And finally, more that half of the animals that PETA takes in die in their care because they try to let them live together and when they are sick they don't give them the proper medicine needed. PETA has good intentions to help animals in need but not all animals need help. We treat our hundreds of cows, dozens of cats, and two dogs with care and love.
PETA is bad.

PETA literally means "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals". First off, PETA has been protesting at SeaWorld, trying to bring to light the cruel orca tanks and crowded animal centers. SeaWorld has been in several legal battles before, and it is clear to see why. Ex-SeaWorld trainers have revealed the cruelty to PETA there toward orcas especially. Jeff Ventre (now a doctor) and John Jett (now a biology professor) worked at SeaWorld Orlando, and now work with the Orca Project, fighting for the rights of these poor animals. They revealed that the whales are confined to small, shallow pools, have a lack of social interaction, and inadequate medical care. They even mentioned whales at SeaWorld have a lifespan of only 9 years, while orcas in the wild have a lifespan of about 30-50 years. Now, PETA is working with the Orca Project to fight for the rights of these whales. PETA protesters are also fighting to bring an end to NIH's "maternal-deprivation experiments" on infant monkeys. This is a paragraph from a PETA article, explaining the evilness of the NIH's experiments: "As revealed in video footage released by PETA, NIH experimenters at a laboratory in Maryland breed monkeys to be prone to depression, remove the infants from their mothers at birth to induce trauma, and then subject the young ones to years of experiments designed to cause, worsen, and measure the babies" severe fear, depression, and anxiety. These experiments have never led to the development of treatments for human mental illness and are superseded by human brain imaging and other modern techniques but have continued for more than 30 years and cost taxpayers more than $30 million in just the past seven years alone." The NIH is using taxpayer dollars to abuse infant monkeys. The PETA program has been working feverously to stop this. They have even involved work with several scientists, such as Jane Goodall, to bring an end to this abuse. Anyone that argues PETA is bad is wrong. As you can see here, PETA has been fighting non-stop for the rights of abused animals across the world. Without them, this cruelty could continue and turn into an even bigger problem. Source- http://www.peta.org...
Hare Krishna is a cult

I didn't ask you to assert that Hare Krishna is a cult, but to define the concept of cult in a way that we can distinguish the cultist aspects, if any, of Hare Krishna which you have not done. Without that, here is an argument that is completely not demonstrated, and you haven't even approached your burden of proof. The next paragraph is, well weird (I looked up Pro's profile, he is 14*. That explains much). New Age spiritually does tend to be self serving, I agree. It is also such a broad category that any generalized statement is impossible, as it will be certainly refuted by some aspect of New Age beliefs. As far as the pseudo ideology, Hare Krishna is mostly noted for its asceticism and simplicity of life and does NOT - even cannot- be considered "self-indulgence of heavy duty materialistic society". They work long hours, have many prayers per day, and live simple, monastic lives in denial of most worldly goods, alcohol and drugs, even coffee and tea! As far as the last paragraph, it is a rather sad bit of racism, and wrong as well. Swammi Prabhupada was Indian, and a monk in the tradition of Vaishnava Hinduism for years before setting on his mission, as I have already alluded to. Vaishnava itself is a tradition dating back centuries and has many adherents in the old country. As far as the 'fake religion' is concerned, well aren't all religions fake to some degree? Using faith and ritual to conceal the fact that there core beliefs are inescapably unproven and unprovable is fakery by any definition. This is the conclusion of the debate. I hope my opponent enjoyed it, however I urge the followers to vote for me as he did not address his own assertion. *Note to self- get profile information before committing to a debate in future.
Hare Krishna is a cult

ok ill tell you that hare krishna is a cult New-age, quasi-eastern spirituality is actually just so called spiritual justification for the intense narcissism of western humanoid. How self-satisfaction and infantile egocentrism became the virtue par excellence of contemporary Western culture certainly is something to look at. This is an pseudo ideology that condones self-indulgence of heavy duty materialistic society as a bona fide spiritual practice.WHITE PEOPLE ARE HARE KRISHNA DEVOTES - HARE KRISHNA DOES NOT COME FROM IT ORIGINAL COUNTRY (INDIA)!!!!! It is a fake religion! same as Mormons, Jahovah Witness ETC. If you become a devote of Hare Krishna it blocks your freedom and quite possibly your soul.
Hare Krishna is a cult

OK, I'm probably going to need to know what your definition of cult is, that Hare Krishna is a cult and any other major church is not. It would be especially useful if you could contrast it with your church, whatever that may be.You said that Hare Krishna started 1966 in California. That is just silly- Cali is a huge cultural melting pot, and creates radical and outlandish ideas in science, technology, religion, even fashion and entertainment continuously. New ideas and thoughts are being tried out all the time. Ditto for the year- the 60s counterculture movement tried essentially everything, as if for the first time. You cannot convice people that all that ferment counts as a cultish behavior- will you argue that the Beach Boys are a cult? I looked this up on the google box- Wikipedia says it was founded in New York [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Also Religion facts indicates that Swammi Prabhupada went to New York first then San Fransisco [http://www.religionfacts.com...].Then you mentioned the chanting of "Hare Krishna" as a form of brainwashing. Brainwashing is a deliberate and systematic torture, meant to break will and force a new belief into someone. What the chanting looks like is a meditative ritual, or part of a yoga routine. Again, many religions do much the same thing- the Catholic "Ave Maria" is the first thing that popped into my mind.You correctly said that Hare Krishna is vegitarian. So what? Lots of people are vegitarian, both as part of a religious organization and through personal choice and have been for thousands of years. Vegitarians know how to get enough and the right kind of plants to get all the nutrition they need. It really doesnt have anything to do with whether the group counts as a cult or not. Again, Pro, I think you shoud tell everybody what a cult is and is not, so we can determine if the Hare Krisha movement counts or not. I also think everyone should check out the videos in the comments- funny stuff there!
Hare Krishna is a cult

hello thank you for accepting, well hare krishna is a cult BECAUSE it was introduced in 1966 IN CALIFORNIA! it is a fake religion/cult because the belief is not from its original country (India). Hare Krishna devotes chant 2 hours a day! chanting, chanting, chanting, chanting Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare DOESN'T THAT SEEM BRAINWASHING!! Another point is they NEVER EAT MEAT, humans have been eating meat for thousands and thousands of years now with this NEW AGE CULT the devotes don't eat meat have a look you lose these nutrients iron calcium zinc copper manganese selenium riboflavin fat soluble vitamins, particularly vitamin D The best sources of these are meat, poultry and seafood, which Hare Krishna's avoid.
Hare Krishna is a cult

"Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare" This is a famous poem from the beliefs of the Hindu faith, particularly the Bhakti denomination. It is nothing more than offering praise and love to god Krishna, and extending that love throughout your being to achieve pure awareness of the Krishna Consciousness. Hinduism is the oldest existing religion in the world, at around 5,000 years. Neither the mantra nor the religion can be properly described as a cult, unless one defines 'cult' to be synonymous with 'religion' in general. I hold that the status of cult only applies if there is excessive zeal or fanaticism, excessive adulation to leaders, indications of severe coercion, and various predatory behaviors in recruiting converts and retaining the faithful. Although Hinduism, like any religion, has its share of absolutists, it and its beliefs tend to be comparable (not worse or more dangerous) to that of other religions, and better than some.
Wittgenstein's "beetle-in-the-box" analogy and the Lockean Interpretation of Language

In my first sentence in the opening statement, I clarified that the full resolution does not fit in the title, so I'm going to present it in the opening statement itself. This seems to have created confusion, although I tried my best to avoid that and made it clear I was offering the full resolution of the debate and clarified that I'm going to be Con on that particular resolution.Anyhow, I wish my opponent better luck in future debates and I advise him to be more careful. If he is confused about the resolution, he should leave a comment about that before he accepts the challenge.
Is Basketball better than Soccer

I think Soccer has far more to offer than Basketball. Basketball requires special equipment and a hard flat surface to play on. Whereas, soccer needs only a ball and some open space. Making soccer a sport available to many more people. At a professional level, basketball is dominated by tall people. Whereas, soccer greatness can be achieved by persons within a much broader height range. I am not a fan of either basketball or soccer and I do not enjoy watching sport. Nonetheless I have witnessed both sports being played. I would have to say that basketball was far less entertaining.
Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

The resolution was chosen by the Pro position and states clearly that “all” U.S. aid to Pakistan should be suspended. It seems reasonable that I would challenge this position by asking that “all” government aid be accounted for. My Opponent has attempted to glaze over all assistance by painting Pakistan as an unstable terrorism-supporting state. This is classic American style demonization of the enemy in order to convince the public of your argument; for example, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and therefore we must attack them. Equally, my Opponent declares that Pakistan is supporting terrorism so we must suspend all aid. My Opponent has clearly misinterpreted or misunderstood his own source: “of the $6.6 billion in military aid the United States gave Pakistan between 2002 and 2008, only $500 million ever made it to the military.” $6.6 billion is the total aid between 2002 and 2008 and $500 million is the total (not yearly amount) for the entire period.I have made no such claim that Pakistan would start a nuclear war with the USA if it cuts all aid. This is a gross exaggeration of my statement. My point was clear: it would not be wise to take such a harsh position against a country that is a nuclear power within a region that the USA already has major conflicts with. Any nuclear power would be offended when being ordered to meet the demand of the USA. My Opponent stated in the 1st Round that the United States “must suspend all assistance until Pakistan is able to at least meet the constraints of our agreement.” This “agreement” was not outlined and furthermore, when has the United States been able to convince another country to meet its demands by cutting all assistance? Cuba? Libya? Iran? This is not an effective strategy and especially against a nuclear power.Pro claims that the United States “would be benefiting more from Indian support than Pakistani support.” I need to remind my Opponent that Pakistan has Afghanistan and Iran directly on its borders. Pakistan is a strategic position and neither the United States, nor India, can afford to have three territories to the northwest of India in conflict with the USA. India would not be able to help the USA with either Afghanistan or Iran because it has Pakistan directly facing these two nations. As for India’s strong economy, my Opponent must understand that this strong economy depends on America to buy its products.
Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

The only point my opponent has brought up on his side is that i must justify suspendng aid to other sectors, which he outlined. I responded to this by showing that regardless of where the aid is supposed to go, once it ges into Pakistan, it goes to the military 80% of the time. Should we only suspend military aid, the Pakistani government will take money from those other sectors and put it into the military, as this is clearly their main objective. Clarifying my 80% point: The 500 million dollars per year is 80% of all money recieved by all sectors of Pakistan that actually remains after the huge corruption problems. My opponent makes the claim that Pakistan is willing to start a nuclear war if we suspend our aid, ignoring the fact that the United States has the most nuclear weapons, and a nuclear war would be futile. My third point does not try to say India is a threat. However, India is a potential boost to our economy which we are losing out on because we are pouring money into a weak, unstable Pakistan. Essentially, we would be benefiting more from Indian support than Pakistani support, which we can achieve through suspension of aid. My opponent's final response was that it could worsen relations in the area. However, he only provided a very tenous link between cutting aid to Iran and bad relations with Iran. Finally, what you must take into consideration in this round is that i must show why to suspend it, temporarily, not abolish it For these reasons, i urge a strong pro ballot