BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Star Trek vs Star Wars

To keep the debate topic short I made it simply Star Trek vs Star Wars, long version we will be debating is... In a total war scenario, who will win between the United Federation of Planets and their allies vs the Galactic Empire. Pro argues in favor of a Federation victory, Con argues in favor of a victory for the Empire. I don't feel like I need to define the warring powers. Total War: A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded.
Steroids should be legal in baseball

First thank you for joining this debate I will like to state my points just about steroids in general: 1) Multiple kids around the world are getting the wrong message from people such as Barry Bonds by taking steroids to do better in their sports. They not only end up getting caught, suspended and then they lose any respect they had for cheating. Also research shows that "Regarding the ease by which one can obtain steroids, 17.0% of eighth graders, 27.7% of tenth graders, and 40.1% of twelfth graders surveyed in 2006 reported that steroids were "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain. " Even more encouraging by watching big league players take them 2) Steroids are also pretty harmful by causing a wide range of adverse side effects ranging from some that are physically unattractive, such as acne and breast development in men, to others that are life threatening. The important part is the life threatening which means that players are risking their lives just to get better at their sport. Also since there currently is the 5 strike rule that means multiple players are taking steroids after being caught multiple times, boosting their playing level greatly. Also since there is a 5 strike rule people don't care if they get caught because they know they will only get a minor suspension or miss a game or two while the more strikes that pile up the more severe the consequence. If there was only a 2 strike rule player's wouldn't do it that often knowing they would get suspended for a season or two for taking it once and then officially not allowed to play baseball for taking it twice. The two strike rule would reduce the amount of steroids taken greatly and make baseball a better sport. Also to the 2 strike rule steroids just ruin the game and make it worse when you know that your favorite player was actually cheating by taking steroids. Thank you,
Guns and bullets are better than A bow and arrow

I am just arguing for the sake of arguing becuase i was in a debate with this topic and it was one round so I am copying the information and I am debating this for fun again. Once again im not a gun zealot, just arguing its case. Here we go. this is a very interesting debate, and In good fun and pure opinion. I am not an avid gun supporter; no one I know even owns one. I am just advocating the case of the good old gun and bullet. (again) Gun: bang bang bang bang bang bang. Click click. flip-click. Bang bang bang.... Arrow: woosh, woosh, woo--damn, the arrow wont get on. What the? how are you supposed to use one of thes- by this time you have shot an arrow through your instructor who is standing behind you. It all boils down to simple, effective, cheap, and the weapon of today. The gun. If you have read the Odyssey, there is a scene where no one can string Odysseus' bow to win the heart of his faithful wife Penelope. No one can manage to do it, except Odysseus, who had had much practice. I personally have used a bow and arrow, and man is it fun but man is it hard to use and a physical strain. Imagine your local police department carrying around bows and arrows, with little children on the sidewalk calling them "Medieval Men," and the teenagers chuckling and calling them "Legolas Legs," or "Bow-legged bow stringer." Bow and arrows are clearly outdated; moving out of the way of the more effective. It may not be as effective as a extremely well trained apple-off-the-head bow and Arrow shooter, but it sure does the job and is extremly simple to master. Besides, they have been around for ages, and everyone loves the good old bayonet, right? Thank you for this fun opportunity. I await the person that accepts response. Good luck.
Guns and bullets are better than A bow and arrow

"That is a complete and utter generalization. You are assuming that If people can better access a gun they will kill innocent people. I do not think this is the case, as 78% of all gun violence is provoked." Yes, provoked by other people with guns. "It doesnt seem that way to me. Gun violence is being cut down alot these days by the gun control subsidaries of america." Yes, it is being cut down a lot. But that's irrelevant. If you cut a giant monster cake 99%, and if you cut a cupcake just 1%, the piece of the giant cake will still be bigger than the cupcake. Gun violence is so rampant in comparison to bow and arrow violence that it doesn't matter how much gun violence is cut. It is still obscenely more common than bow and arrow violence. *************** "This is what I meant by a bow and arrow doing little harm comparatively. When compared to many guns and many bullets, a single bow and a single arrow do much less harm." When accurate, bows and arrows can be as harmful and devastating as a gun. Guns can misfire, backfire, and any fire in between. ***************** You still don't understand my point. LOOK AT THE TITLE. You are comparing MANY GUNS AND BULLETS (Gun and bullet is pluralized) To a SINGLE BOW AND ARROW (Bow and arrow in SINGULAR FORM) Thus, You are essentially arguing that many guns and bullets as weapons in this society is better than a single bow and a single arrow as a single weapon. "Since when has it been a normal occurance to save someone with a gun, let alone an arrow? Please clarify this." Doctors treat gunshot wounds daily. When do they treat arrow wounds? "In conclusion, guns can be controlled and are on their way to being safer and safer. Guns can be more effective and alot less painful if a hit is made. Overall, guns are the way to go, and they have been since the early american wars." Look at the language you use. Guns CAN be controlled Guns are ON THEIR WAY to being safer Guns CAN be more effective Guns CAN be a lot less painful. A society with guns is by far much more dangerous and bloody than a society with just bows and arrows. You have not argued this point, you basically said that bows and arrows CAN do some damage, but you cleverly sidestepped around the comparison. This debate is about comparing guns to bows. I am doing that very blatantly. GUNS KILL PEOPLE BETTER THAN BOWS DO. You said so yourself in the first argument: "Gun: bang bang bang bang bang bang. Click click. flip-click. Bang bang bang.... Arrow: woosh, woosh, woo--damn, the arrow wont get on. What the? how are you supposed to use one of thes- by this time you have shot an arrow through your instructor who is standing behind you. It all boils down to simple, effective, cheap, and the weapon of today." If everyone had such trouble shooting arrows, people would get hurt a lot less, and society would be safer. Making guns simple, effective, and cheap only means more deaths, more fatalities. To make it even more simple: A maniac wants to kill you. Would you rather he shot you with a gun, or would you rather he shot you with an arrow?
Guns and bullets are better than A bow and arrow

Hello, kleptin, and thank you for your response. here is another picture similar to the previous, one, just not of the magnitude and force. This one is a little more docile: http://www.mainehuntingtoday.com... I will now refute some of your poitns from your round two argument: "Yes, that is a problem. The easier it is to get a gun, the easier it is for people to kill other innocent people. Many people with many guns and many bullets will do a lot more harm than one person with "A" bow and "AN" arrow." That is a complete and utter generalization. You are assuming that If people can better access a gun they will kill innocent people. I do not think this is the case, as 78% of all gun violence is provoked. "Yes, but death by gunshot is so frequent that it rolls off the tongue. It's heard on the news every night. I doubt you can even remember the last time you heard of a murder where the weapon was a bow and arrow." It doesnt seem that way to me. Gun violence is being cut down alot these days by the gun control subsidaries of america. "This is what I meant by a bow and arrow doing little harm comparatively. When compared to many guns and many bullets, a single bow and a single arrow do much less harm." When accurate, bows and arrows can be as harmful and devastating as a gun. Guns can misfire, backfire, and any fire in between. "No. But you must admit it would be nice if all guns and bullets were replaced with bows and arrows, yes? It would be a lot easier to save someone with an arrow wound than a bullet wound." Since when has it been a normal occurance to save someone with a gun, let alone an arrow? Please clarify this. In conclusion, guns can be controlled and are on their way to being safer and safer. Guns can be more effective and alot less painful if a hit is made. Overall, guns are the way to go, and they have been since the early american wars. Thank you and I await your final rebuttal.
Guns and bullets are better than A bow and arrow

"Hello, and although your argument was short I will refute it." Short arguments are easy to refute. "Ehmm (clears throught). I hate to say you are wrong with the bow and arrow thing, but you are. Take a look at this picture for me. http://cache.viewimages.com...... This proved you wrong on many levels. Bows and arrows can kill and are used in hunting quite frequently. They are used all over where guns or other weapons are not available." First of all, I am unable to view that image. It links me to a page of broken HTML text. But I will take your word for it that the picture was of a very scary-looking bow and a very scary-looking arrow. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Perhaps it was my fault for being unclear. Please reexamine, word for word and letter for letter, the issue at hand. You have chosen to word the topic thusly: "gun(s) and bullet(s)" AGAINST "A" bow and arrow This is what I meant by a bow and arrow doing little harm comparatively. When compared to many guns and many bullets, a single bow and a single arrow do much less harm. "I also want to say that guns are easier and are becoming more and more accesible." Yes, that is a problem. The easier it is to get a gun, the easier it is for people to kill other innocent people. Many people with many guns and many bullets will do a lot more harm than one person with "A" bow and "AN" arrow. "And yes, guns and bullets do account for alot of deaths but bow and arrows arent exactly childrens toys either." Yes, but death by gunshot is so frequent that it rolls off the tongue. It's heard on the news every night. I doubt you can even remember the last time you heard of a murder where the weapon was a bow and arrow. "And once again, I will take from my previous statement, do you see policeman walking down the street with a bow around their shoulder and some arrows on their back yelling halt to a running criminal while trying to string an arrow at the same time? I think not." No. But you must admit it would be nice if all guns and bullets were replaced with bows and arrows, yes? It would be a lot easier to save someone with an arrow wound than a bullet wound.
Guns and bullets are better than A bow and arrow

Hello, and although your argument was short I will refute it. First I want to criticize something you said: "Guns and bullets account for a massive number of deaths in the country, whereas a single bow and a single arrow can do little harm." Ehmm (clears throught). I hate to say you are wrong with the bow and arrow thing, but you are. Take a look at this picture for me. http://cache.viewimages.com... This proved you wrong on many levels. Bows and arrows can kill and are used in hunting quite frequently. They are used all over where guns or other weapons are not available. I also want to say that guns are easier and are becoming more and more accesible. And yes, guns and bullets do account for alot of deaths but bow and arrows arent exactly childrens toys either. And once again, I will take from my previous statement, do you see policeman walking down the street with a bow around their shoulder and some arrows on their back yelling halt to a running criminal while trying to string an arrow at the same time? I think not. Thank you.
Should science replace physics chemistry biology in 10TH STANDARD board exams

I have to say, my opponent certainly seems desperate to debate without actually debating. He, the instigator, has decided to debate a subject that is relevant and important but in an offhand and complacent way. Nevertheless I will address his argument from round 2, where he suggested that learning the sciences separately both allows one to be above average - "ahead of his times" - and gives a strong "foundation", presumably for further study in IIT. In fact, the opposite is true. The key to excelling in science and technology is being able to link scientific concepts, understand the overall scientific picture of the issue being dealt with, and thus being able to produce a better and more efficient result. So learning science under one umbrella subject already links all the knowledge gained by the student under the 'umbrella' and, when confronted with a scientific issue involving hard problems, the ability to link concepts will already be partially there. And, regarding the strong foundation, one can learn the same volume of knowledge in a science course as in biology, chemistry and physics courses. The focal point of this debate is whether it should be one big umbrella subject called science, or three smaller ones called biology, chemistry and physics. And, based on the above, the former is clearly the more desirable option. I strongly urge my opponent to write a proper argument in the next round so that we can have a more enhanced discussion to conclude this important debate.
Should science replace physics chemistry biology in 10TH STANDARD board exams

I am not too sure what my opponent means by his/her statement, so I will continue elaborating my viewpoint. If my opponent is already flagging and giving up, I would like to point out that there are two rounds to follow this one. Gruelling is an understatement. Science is a very general term that covers a very broad area. In the real world, no one person is highly knowledgeable in all areas of science, but only in certain small areas. It is helpful to divide up the large term "science" into three areas: biology, chemistry and physics. This, however, is unhelpful in the professional world because, again, there is no one person who is highly knowledgeable in all areas of biology, chemistry or physics. So the divisions are not useful for proper professional science. So what is its role? To help "classify" even smaller groupings as it were. For example, a layman who reads that spectroscopy is mainly physics and has useful applications in chemistry will understand what spectroscopy consists of better than if he only read that it is a branch of science. However, when it comes to education, the three branches of science should interact and create a complete picture together. How else do you better educate your future scientists by showing them how to apply knowledge from one area of science to explain something in another? A sound knowledge of all three sciences and where they complement each other would help for something like spectroscopy. So while biology, chemistry and physics are useful in study, all three sciences should still be taught in harmony to better students" scientific skills.
Should science replace physics chemistry biology in 10TH STANDARD board exams

To me, what seems to be the key issue about studying sciences together is the volume of content learned. Now, a science qualification can have the same amount of content as three science qualifications put together; if one student can do either in the same amount of time it is logical to say that both have the same amount of content. If you mix three chemicals, the resulting solution may be of a smaller volume than the combined three, but it will have the same mass. Similarly, combining biology, chemistry and physics should do no harm to the amount of knowledge acquired by the students; it shouldn't make any difference. Yet in reality, it is easy to find areas where biology, chemistry and physics overlap and complement each other. A good knowledge of chemistry is extremely useful for biochemistry, where knowledge of different types of bonding can explain the way biochemistry works. Physics and chemistry complement each other regarding atoms and sub-atomic particles. All three can help regarding environmental issues of pollution and global warming. Someone who wants to go into the medical field would find a solid foundation of chemistry or physics extremely useful, and some medical degrees even require all three sciences studied at a high level. So studying the sciences together enhances knowledge where the sciences complement each other, and can be extremely useful when linking topics to discuss something that transcends the divisions of biology, chemistry and physics.
Should science replace physics chemistry biology in 10TH STANDARD board exams

I first would like to tell you a bit about myself. I am currently doing A-Levels, which are the equivalent of the exams after 10th standard; while GCSEs, which I did when I was 16, are the equivalent of 10th standard exams. In the UK, where I live, GCSEs are taken by most with a variety of subjects, including compulsory subjects such as Mathematics, English, and Science, and optional subjects such as Geography and Foreign Languages. Regarding Science, there are essentially nine sections to all science courses. There are first the basic three units of biology, chemistry and physics which together form the basic GCSE Science. You can then do a further three units to add a GCSE Additional Science, and then a further three to complete three individual GCSEs of Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. This means that the British (or more precisely, English and Welsh) education system incorporates both sides of the coin of this debate. While all of this is irrelevant for the debate, I hope this gives a context to my arguments. Firstly, GCSEs have to be done by everyone (within reason) and Science is a core and basic subject that the UK government wants to be done by everyone. In an ever globalised world, every government is keen on improving education and ensuring the nation is competitive. It is in the government's best interests that students study with both breadth and depth, and the 10th standard serves the breadth requirement while the following years provide more depth. To be effective, depth must have less breadth, so that students can specialise. So, while gaining knowledge is useful and important, the education system should allow many to gain lots of knowledge in science and even more to have enough knowledge to specialise, get jobs, and help the economy. Not everyone in the world can do a degree in physics, but everyone should be able to gain a basic, 10th standard qualification in the sciences. So if combining sciences together allows more students to study it and ensures that less students are totally left in the dark regarding basic science, then full steam ahead.
Anarchism is not as flawed as people claim it is.

People get "anarchism" and "anarchy" confused a lot, but the fact is, they aren't mildly similar, other than they have the same Greek roots, "an", or without, and "arkhos", leader. "Without a leader". This indicated the first real problem in our society, our leaders have convinced us that without them we would go into chaos. Anarkhos-->anarchy. Regardless of whether this is right or wrong, this is a plain example of the shifting of language to reflect your ideologies, it is a form of propaganda. Which feeds right into my next point.Our current system of "democracy" feeds on fears, lies, and propaganda. People are misled and lied to, and the system doesn't represent the majority of people either, as they are stuck with one of two candidates who they do not want. Is it really democracy if it doesn't represent the people? Is this really the "power of the people", or the power of those who wish to rule over the people? Anarchism abolishes leaders, not rules (I will cover this later). Without leaders, there can't be propaganda, there aren't individual people who mislead the community. People don't take anarchism seriously. They say there are no rules, and therefore the society will blow up, no leaders≠no laws≠no law enforcement≠chaos. This is factually incorrect. Anarchism doesn't have individuals leaders, but it still has law and order. Leaders who represent their own interests aren't the ones passing the laws, the people are. An anarchist society is small (by population size), and therefore uses direct democracy. There's still laws, there's still law enforcement, there's no individuals who think they know their people better than their people know themselves. And what, say, happens if everything breaks into violence? The people living in the system can vote it away, easily. (In addition, the purchase and sale of guns can be outlawed easily in an anarchist society).Anarchism is an implementation of socialism, like communism except on the opposite end of the social spectrum. It tries to abolish classes and wealth disparities, just instead of forcing to comply, it's a system of valid democracy, a democracy actually representing its people rather than one individual who can start nuclear war with a single phone call.
Anyone 16 or older should be held accountable for their own actions within the court of law

Anyone(Human) 16 or older should qualify for a higher court such as general sessions insted of Juvenile court.The refferee for the juveniles usually just take the delinquents drivers license away for a period of usually 1 year, therfore the general sessions should just have to go ahead and accept 16 and older.a child starting at the age of 10 can begin the process of being criminally involved with Juvenile court, that gives an iindevidual 6 years to stop and realize.
Anyone 16 or older should be held accountable for their own actions within the court of law

The law indeed does say that anyone under the age of 18 is counted as a 'Minor' (at least in the state of Tennessee) I believe that once 16, any law involvement should be moved up to a higher power of the court system (other than Juvenile court) I have only seen a delinquent charged as an adult during murder..Once 16, you should be held accountable for your actions under the jurisdiction of the court!