BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"There are no unlucky people, just unhappy people"

I had to forfeit because of time and homework. Before I begin I would like to clarify some things then defending my case. First the resolution states there are no unlucky people. If I prove there is one unlucky person then I win the debate. I would first like to post some definitons according to Apple dictonary and thesaurus: Luck-"success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions" Unlucky-"having, bringing, or resulting from bad luck. " syns-unfortunate, luckless, out of luck, jinxed, hapless, ill-fated, ill-starred, unhappy; informal down on one's luck; literary star-crossed. Unhappy-" not happy" syns- sad, miserable, sorrowful, dejected, despondent, disconsolate, morose, broken-hearted, heartbroken, hurting, down, downcast, dispirited, downhearted, depressed, melancholy, mournful, gloomy, glum, lugubrious, despairing, doleful, forlorn, woebegone, woeful, long-faced, joyless, cheerless; informal down in the dumps, down in/at the mouth, blue. There are differences between unhappy and unlucky. Unforutate and unlucky are similar Extending contention 1: "They don't complain so they are not unhappy. " This I will elaborate on disabled people. People are born by random chance of genes. They were born out to be an unlucky being resulted by chance and luck during pregmancy. Therefore there are unlucky people with fatal genetic disorders. Extending contention 2: there are unlucky people such as people who lost large abouts of money, this is based by a chance on gambing. You would need to depend on luck to get the right cards, but if you didn't then you are considered unlucky. Extending contention 3: Speaking of countries, what would you consider someone who just had their wallet and passport stolen in a foreign country? You should consider the person unlucky because he or she was at the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong action. How about identiy theft? The victim would be considered unlucky because he wasn't aware of it and was unlucky to be doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. So in conclusion there are unlucky people such as people with genetic disablities, gamble and lose, and someone who had their money and identity stolen. So clearly there are unlucky people.
"There are no unlucky people, just unhappy people"

I would like to base my argument on the stand point that logically, luck does not exist. It is a completely illogical idea. Therefore, it can't possibly be possible to be lucky or unlucky. If it does exist, it is merely a state of mind. Therefore, being happy equates to viewing oneself as "lucky" and being unhappy equates to viewing oneself as "unlucky". Now to attack my oponents case: C1: Of course they are hoping for a better standard. But the fact that they are not unhappy means they are not unlucky. C2: Standpoint: Luck doesn't exist. He'd be considered unfortunate. Your definition is incorrect. There is a difference between the two. C3: On what grounds can you base this argument? I am American and I do not view these people as unlucky or unfortunate for that matter. This is a generalazation. I don't understand how this is abusive or how I did not provide "fair grounds" debate. I now respectfully await my oponents arguments.
"There are no unlucky people, just unhappy people"

I stand in negation of the resolution: There are no unlucky people, just unhappy people. Observation of the resolution: I stand saying that there are unlucky people in this world. Unlucky people are unfortunate people. Unhappy people are people who have been spoiled and lost their fortune. There is no fair ground in this resolution so whoever can prove the quote as true or false wins. Contention 1: There are unlucky people, unlucky people are like refugees in slums. They don't complain so they are not unhappy. They are just unfortunate/ unlucky. They are not unhappy but they hope for a better living standard. Contention 2: What would you consider a person who just lost a large amount of money? He would be considered an unlucky person. No duh. Contention 3: We as Americans consider third would countries as unlucky. They are unlucky because of the status they are condemned to start out with. They are not unhappy but unlucky. In conclusion in I have posted my case. I would like to say that this is an abuse because my opponent did not provide a fair ground in this debate. Thank you. I look forward to your debate.
"There are no unlucky people, just unhappy people"

Hey there. This is a quote from my friend Robby, and personally, although we rarely agree on anything anymore, I agree with this. I'm looking for a fun, friendly, and productive debate. Let the games begin! First: Because if someone's life sucks, but they are utterly happy with it, then they don't realize they are unlucky. In fact, they feel they are lucky because they are satisfied with life. Second: Because if someone has a good life but isn't pleased with it then they view themselves as "unlucky" because they are discontent. Third: Because luck is subjective depending on your outlook. So one's contentment with life could be considered a measure of how lucky they find themselves.
Eliminate all who are not of Caucasian descent

In helping with overpopulation, you would cause much more severe underpopulation than there is overpopulation and the justification would be none at all.See, in an underpopulated world there's not solution at least in an overpopulated world the poor of all races can cram together in crappy neighborhoods to fit but in an underpopulated world no one is there to work for the 'superior beings' be they Caucasian or rich of all races.
In Modern Warfare 2, the UMP .45 is overpowered.

RPM = rounds per minute 1a. The UMP .45 does 35-40 damage [1]. The FAMAS does 30-40 damage except shoots all three bullets at once at 925 RPM [2]. The FAMAS, according to my opponent's own source for assault rifles, is much more accurate. Therefore, the FAMAS is going to be more effective than the UMP at every range except close which would mean the UMP isn't overpowered. 1b. The UMP has a fire rate of 630 RPM which is the lowest RPM out of all guns in the game [1]. Although the UMP has high damage per bullet, its low accuracy and "relatively higher than assault rifle" recoil will make it tough to land every shot needed for the kill. Factor this in with extremely poor rate of fire and it leads to very poor performance at mid and long range. Cross apply my 1a and you'll see that the FAMAS clearly has an advantage at mid and long range. Close range advantage for the UMP is irrelevant since all SMGs dominate close quarters. 1c. The UMP .45 technically has the worst damage per second out of any gun in the game. It only shoots 10.5 rounds per second when going full auto. However, in order to be effective with it at long range, players will have to shoot it much slower than full auto. The ACR unloads 750 RPM which adds up to 12.5 rounds per second [3]. Factor this in with the fact that the ACR literally has no recoil, is far more accurate and can do a max of 30 damage per bullet, it becomes more effective than the UMP at every range. Due to no recoil, the player can take full advantage of the ACR's 12.5 rounds per second. Conclusion: The UMP is certainly not overpowered. Vote con. Sources 1. http://callofduty.wikia.com... 2. http://callofduty.wikia.com... 3. http://callofduty.wikia.com...
In Modern Warfare 2, the UMP .45 is overpowered.

For my first point I would like to bring to light the fact that the UMP .45 has the highest damage and accuracy out of all the sub machine guns[1]. Even though the ump .45 is a gun that is unlocked at default. As the mini-uzi is the last sub machine gun to be unlocked it would be reasonable to believe that this gun would have the highest damage and accuracy. The ump is able to kill very fast and very effectively. The ump .45 also has higher damage than any of the assault rifles[2], light machine guns [3] the riot shield[4] and the m21-ebr[5]. Thus it is stronger than every weapon in the game spare the intervention, barrett 50cal, and the WA2000. Yet it is still a weapon that you do not even need to unlock, you have it from the beginning. Seems pretty overpowered. [1] . http://www.modernwarfare247.com... [2] . http://www.modernwarfare247.com... [3] . http://www.modernwarfare247.com... [4] . http://www.modernwarfare247.com... [5] . http://www.modernwarfare247.com...
In Modern Warfare 2, the UMP .45 is overpowered.

Overpowered: gratuitously and overly effective/powerful. As con, I believe the UMP .45 is completely balanced and is not worthy of the term 'overpowered.' I will allow pro to open with their case as to why he thinks the UMP is overpowered. Please do not take this debate if you intend to forfeit. If you disagree with my definition of overpowered, leave a note in the comments and I'll try to change it more to your liking. As for sources, Call of Duty wikis are acceptable. As for rules, be polite, constructive, and don't be pushy with semantics. Let the debate begin. Good luck to whomever chooses to take me up on this.
In Modern Warfare 2, the UMP .45 is overpowered.

I apologize for my lack of response. Furthermore i apologize for even taking this debate, when i excepted this debate i expected that i would be able to find some hint of the UMP .45 being overpowered. I at first thought that it having the second highest damage in the game would be able to fully back this. However after playing Modern Warfare 2 on the PS3 (psn name=XxdarkhorizonxX *add me* :D) over the past week for a very. .. very long time (i gained a whole prestige level) I have come to the conclusion that the UMP .45. .. sucks. On average i would get under ten kills a game using only the UMP with marathon pro lightweight pro and commando pro (or substituting in slight of hand pro or stopping power pro. ) Where as normally using either the Intervention (FMJ) or the M16A4 (Holographic sights) with striker (FMJ) as secondary i average 15-20 kills per game. With the exception of some games like the one in the screen shot [1] however i somehow managed to lose that game even though i pretty much scored half of my teams points. .. [1] . http://img21.imageshack.us... (easier to see if you zoom out) In conclusion, i concede.
God, the argument of unnecessary suffering

[The Debate] I as Pro will seek to provide argument to support the proposition that God (as defined) does not exist is more likely true than false with a focus on suffering. Definitions God - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally perfect*, supernatural, personal being. * Morally perfect = It is understood that morally perfect here means that God in it's actions & non actions could not of possibly done any different to get a better outcome. Unnecessary suffering = suffering which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. Necessary suffering = suffering which is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.
The doctor dances is the greatest doctor who episode ever

I DO agree that dancing is great. I take great pleasure in dancing on a regular basis, however I also believe that there is more to the programme than this. I think u are missing the main aims put forward by the producers. as I mentioned before, there is much more to the show and think you would do well to consider these and watch the series again. you may find you can enjoy the show much more if you can appreciate all factors, not just dancing.
The doctor dances is the greatest doctor who episode ever

Thank you for such a polite argument. Here are some websites that i will refer you to as proof that dancing is brilliant, and therefore the doctor dances, is easily the greatest episode of Doctor Who ever; http://www.wherethehellismatt.com... http://www.woot.co.uk... http://www.eternalmoonwalk.com... http://mashable.com... If you can deny that these are not infallible proof that dancing is great, then you are quite the genius. Extend all arguments
The doctor dances is the greatest doctor who episode ever

i agree dancing is good, but im afraid dancing is not all there is to life. i would like to put forward the arguments of friendship, love, feelings and happiness, all of which the episodes mentioned earlier target. This is what draws people in. The dancing DOES have an added effect to the program, but the whole series is not just about aliens and victory - it is also about relationships and teamwork. I believe it to be a very psychological programme.
Bigfoot can't and doesn't exist due to the lack of evidence and no fossil records supporting it.

~Counterarguments~ 1. Impact on culture. Aliens, like your avatar picture (as of now), have a profound impact on culture. The myth about the NASA hoax landing on the Moon is also common, as is the myth about Loch Ness monster and other myriads of myths, legends, and folklore. Just because Big Foot has a demonstrable impact as cultural phenomenon doesn't point to the validity of its existence at all. 2. Scientific community being wrong. Your point about Galileo shows how science is a self-repairing mechanism. Theories can and will be checked out as scientific evidence either proves or disproves it as time passes by. The geocentric model had very little evidence, and most of it was trivial such as direct observation by looking in to the skies. The church adhered to this model due to mostly religious reasons, and this is why it was so hard for them to side with Galileo. It was until he brought solid scientific evidence was he eventually persuade the church. Sure, there is a possibility that evidence for Bigfoot might come up. But that's equally possible for evidence for aliens and other myths to be validated. We shouldn't base our beliefs on something SOLELY with the reasoning that they MIGHT be validated in the future. This would usher for us to believe in practically everything, citing our reasoning as stated. 3. Cryptozoology I can't see the point in this argument. So yes, there is a field that is dedicated to find evidence for Bigfoot and such creatures. This however isn't evidence, as is astrology isn't evidence for the claim that the positions of celestial bodies affect personality and human affairs.
Bigfoot can't and doesn't exist due to the lack of evidence and no fossil records supporting it.

I know that I'm the underdog of the debate when my position is CON. However, I will attempt to attack this topic since I want to see how well I can fight this debate. This debate doesn't have to be Lincoln-Douglas debate, but I would rather have it a formal debate than a informal debate. But if you want to response in an informal way, then I'm okay with that. I think Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch can exist because Bigfoot has had a demonstrable impact as a cultural phenomenon and has become a popular symbol. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Although the scientific community disagrees with the existence of Bigfoot, this isn't the first time that the scientific community could be wrong. For example, geocentric model formed before in the 5th century BC and it lasted about two millenniums and one century before Galileo came into conflict with the Catholic Church over his support of Copernican astronomy, is often considered a defining moment in the history of the relationship between religion and science. Therefore, the scientific community was wrong for 2100 years. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... So, possibly in the future, we can find evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. Bigfoot one of the more famous examples of cryptozoology. Cryptozoology is the study of and search for animals which fall outside of contemporary zoological catalogs. It consists of two primary fields of research: * The search for living examples of animals taxonomically identified through fossil records, but which are believed to be extinct. * The search for animals that fall outside of taxonomic records due to a lack of empirical evidence, but for which anecdotal evidence exists in the form of myths, legends, or undocumented sightings. Those involved in that study are known as "cryptozoologists"; the animals they study are often referred to as "cryptids", a term coined by John Wall in 1983. Because cryptozoologists do not universally follow the scientific method and devote a substantial portion of their efforts to investigations of cryptids that most scientists believe are unlikely to exist, cryptozoology has received little attention from the scientific community. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... I have introduced the topic and will take the challenge I posed on myself when creating this topic and having the position of CON. I will let the taker of this debate to make the first arguments.
Peanut butter does not contain nuts.

"Con interprets the resolution as: ALL peanut butter contains no nuts. I will argue that this interpretation is wrong. " This is completely unfair of you. All terms of the debate must be discussed in the 1st round by the instigator, otherwise, they may be disregarded. It's far too late for you to change the debate. "If I wanted to pull the same trick my opponent tried, I could argue that the resolution should be interpreted as "SOME peanut butter contains no nuts", in order to skew the debate in my favor, but I trust judges to go with the more balanced and fair interpretation I argued for. " Either way, the debate wasn't fair because of course peanuts are not nuts. You *did* skew it in your favor because if my argument doesn't count because it apparently wasn't what you were expecting, then what did you want me to debate? Peanuts are not legumes? This isn't a debate about peanuts, if that's what you mean, it's about peanut butter. If my opponent can be unfair and skew the debate in their favor, so can I. "I proved that Jif peanut butter does not contain nuts, and my opponent dropped that argument. And since Jif peanut butter is the most popular peanut butter brand [1], it is an ideal representative of peanut butter in general, which shows that peanut butter generally does not contain nuts. " Once again, you never showed that in the resolution or the first round, so it isn't fair for you to tell me I *should* have interpreted in a specific way, and jif peanut butter is one brand. The resolution said nothing about jif peanut butter. Also I put two almonds in a "jif peanut butter" and made it my profile pic, so now there officially IS a peanut butter that contains nuts. It is unreasonable for me to show peanuts are not legumes. So in short, you weren't fair either, you had the BoP, I proved you wrong, and you were too late to change my interpretation of the resolution. The character limit is astoundingly short so.
Peanut butter does not contain nuts.

Resolution Interpretation Con interprets the resolution as: ALL peanut butter contains no nuts. I will argue that this interpretation is wrong. Take the statement "grass is green". It is understood to mean "grass is generally green" and is therefor accepted as true. Saying "Grass is green" doesn't imply "There does not exist a non-green blade of grass" or "You cannot spray paint grass to be a color other than green". And by extension, "peanut butter does not contain nuts" means "peanut butter generally does not contain nuts" as opposed to my opponent's interpretation. If I wanted to pull the same trick my opponent tried, I could argue that the resolution should be interpreted as "SOME peanut butter contains no nuts", in order to skew the debate in my favor, but I trust judges to go with the more balanced and fair interpretation I argued for. Argument Extension I proved that Jif peanut butter does not contain nuts, and my opponent dropped that argument. And since Jif peanut butter is the most popular peanut butter brand [1], it is an ideal representative of peanut butter in general, which shows that peanut butter generally does not contain nuts. Although I do have BoP, it is unreasonable to expect me to show that every major brand of peanut butter does not contain nuts do to the 2000 character limit. On the other hand, if a major brand of peanut butter did contain nuts, all my opponent has to do to win is to post it and show that the ingredients include nuts. If my opponent doesn't give an example of a major brand of peanut butter containing nuts, then either A) it doesn't exist, or B) it exists, but he was too lazy to find and post it. Given that my opponent showed he is motivated to try to win in his previous argument, it can be assumed that if he doesn't show a major brand of peanut butter containing nuts, then it is because it doesn't exist. Source [1] http://www.ranker.com...
Peanut butter does not contain nuts.

Peanuts are legumes, not nuts. [1] [2] Peanut butter consist primarily of ground peanuts, which are not nuts. [3] The other ingredients in peanut butter are not nuts either. For example, the ingredients listed for Jif peanut butter is: "MADE FROM ROASTED PEANUTS AND SUGAR, CONTAINS 2% OR LESS OF: MOLASSES, FULLY HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OILS (RAPESEED AND SOYBEAN), MONO AND DIGLYCERIDES, SALT." [4] None of those ingredients are nuts. So it can be concluded that peanut butter does not contain nuts. Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.peanut-institute.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.jif.com...
The Total War series of games are better than the Age of Empires series

I only have a few minutes to post this, and I excuse myself for all of the topics I do not specifically cover. Tactics Ambushes are more easily discovered in AoE, and only a few units can be hidden. In TW, all units can create an ambush. Economics The economics of TW are more realistic than AoE. As a faction leader, the destruction of economics are more like those in TW than in AoE. Storyline Excuse me for what I said. I meant to say that in the same game one can seek pirate gold and fight Custer, creating a situation where the player is involved in several unrelated storylines. Factions The factions in TW have more quality than AoE. More diversity and unit abilities. About the same number of copies of TW games have been sold. Units Sure, AoE has diverse units, more there is more diversity in TW. About the same number of copies of TW games have been sold. Additional Storylines Yes, they both have exceptional storylines, but the campaigns on TW are more diverse and have completley different gameplay from the others. AoE have diversity, true, but the same type of gameplay. Price My Gold Edition of Rome Total War was $20 at gamestop, while at the same gamestop my gold edition of AoE was $40. Online I didn't expect for this to come up, but ok. Cheats make the games less fair and more one sided. And while I did like the Tower Defence games, TW online was much more fun, intresting, an fair to me. This is my last speech, and here I go. Basically, Total War games offer more diversity, fairness, and relavence to each other than those of the Age of Empires series.