BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WWII wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the treaty of versailes

First off: formalities.Greetings debaters and voters - this is my first debate on this site. I do parliamentary debate in college, and I am terrible at it. Out of respect for your time, I will keep my argumentation short and hopefully sweet. I have no formal opinion on this topic - but feel that it is a topic worthy of discussion.The Treaty of Versailles was created in order to avoid another war in Europe - so if you believe that it is a cause of WWII, then we have had a MASSIVE failure on the part of our treaty makers.Sources:https://apecsec.org...http://www.markedbyteachers.com...https://connectusfund.org... I will summarize the main points of the article here:1. DisarmamentBy forcing the Central Powers to surrender their weapons, they believed that they were removing the weapon from the killer. Germany/Austria had been the instigators in the mind of the allies, and now they had been disarmed. That would stop any future war from this cause.2. OccupationHaving foreign troops in Rhineland would prevent Germany from fighting against the people of Rhineland. This also dispirited the government of Germany, knowing that their effective territory had been reduced. Size does matter when it comes to governance - Germany was weakened and would now have a great reminder of the error in their ways.3. ReparationMoney is great - but rather than merely wanting to fill their own pockets, the allies attempted to remind Germany of the expenses of war, both monetarily and in personnel. On the other side of the coin, we see that without the treaty of Versailles, what would take its place? No treaty? Continued hostilities? A worse treaty? Harsher or milder? I would like clarification somewhere in your response, so that I know where this argument is going.
establishing a national curriculum

It is disappointing that PRO forfeited, but I will still introduce a few arguments for the purpose of this debate. Preface: As my opponent does not respond to my definitions, they will be extended. Now, such a curriculum as such defined is unnecessary to have to be confined within the parameters of any certain country, for there are certain aspects that are common to any set of courses supplied as a national education, such as mathematics and geography, physical education, and a much besides. To claim or presuppose that such a curriculum can only be 'national', as such defined, would be a assumption not only absurd in composition, but also impossible to achieve on an internationl context. Such a curriculum must possess aspects that are instrumental to any well rounded education anywhere in the world, and thus asserting that a 'national' curriculum be established is impossible and improbable to achieve.
establishing a national curriculum

I accept; as PRO fails to specify any definitions, I take it that it is my burden to do so in the proceedings of this debate. Having said so, I would like to provide the following: 1>National: peculiar or common to the whole people of a country [1] 2>Curriculum: the aggregate of courses of study given in a school, college, university, etc. [1] Burden of Proof: It becomes thus PRO's burden of proof to justify the necesity of a aggregate set of courses only common to a nation; it will be mine to provide sufficient and adequate justification for why a curriculum as so defined does not necessarily have to be confined to a domestic or national context.
Modern shooters are completely destroying the shooter genre and just plainly miss the point.

1. Although that definition is correct, and it's true that modern shooters fit that definition, that was never my point. What I was trying to say is that modern shooters are stepping away from the definition, doing a significantly worse job than old shooters in following it by simplifying the genre and being just overall, bad examples of it. 2. Still I don't see a cont-argument. Only think you've said right now is that people have different tastes, and that has nothing to do with our debate right now. Also GTA V is not really a shooter. It's a free-roam action game. Although it does have shooter elements, the shooter aspect is not the core gameplay element. 3. That's true, still I don't see what it has to do with my point about gun, but the statement is still true. 4. AI for Multi-player characters is not important at all taking into account that multiplayer is mostly based on competitive play between the players, and not the player and AI. The technology gets better and better, but that doesn't mean that older designs were worse than the new. It's like talking that sprite art is worse than 3D art when they are both different things, done with care and originality. Sometimes the older models have mole details and interesting quirks put into them than the new ones. And you're using an example from a game that isn't really that far from a pretty oldschool experience when it comes to games. Waiting for your arguments Con.
Modern shooters are completely destroying the shooter genre and just plainly miss the point.

I haven't yet given an arguement I have only given counter arguements so I will wait till Round 4 to counter argument points made by Pro. 1. Definition of Shooter games - "Shooter games are a sub-genre of action game, which often test the player's speed and reaction time. It includes many subgenres that have the commonality of focusing on the actions of the avatar using some sort of weapon. Usually this weapon is a gun, or some other long-range weapon." As we can clearly see the debate is titled "Modern shooters are completely destroying the shooter genre and just plainly miss the point." You say modern day shooters miss the point, when modern day shooters having the same aspects of an old shooter in cooperated in their games, so you have basically already stuffed up majorly with the question. 2. Nowadays it's more about taste in shooter games. Personally I don't like Killzone Shadow Fall, probably the worst game I have ever played. But in saying that in is a different genre of shooter. Killzone SF is a Action, Sci-fi. So there are many different genres of shooters and topic all of which have different fans. So you might like only old shooters such as Duke Nuke Em and Quake whereas other people such as myself prefer new modern day shooters like Call of Duty (the new ones) and GTA 5. 3. Games devs also have very different art styles to one another, Dean Hall (DayZ) likes to design realistic games whereas game dsigners such as Robin Walker and John Cook (TF2) like to go for a comical video game. 4. Players have got so much better over the years in terms of design. This can be for AI and Multi-player characters. Characters don't have that boxy look on their legs anymore [http://www.g-portal.de...] - [http://blog.nomadicagency.com...] and they're now created with much more detail. That's all I have to say right now I will save some of my points for Round 4 & 5. Back to you Pro
The Big Bang theory is not a sufficient explanation for creation.

"The energy itself still requires an explanation for its existence, and while there may be one, the Big bang model does not provide the explanation. Also in the beginning an equal number baryons and antibaryons should have been formed. However, in the most distant parts of the universe, there is almost exclusively baryonic matter. This is an unexplainable symmetry that the Big Bang should not have caused." Yes this is what I referred to as baryonic asymmetry. The universe favoured matter over antimatter. This does not invalidate Big Bang Theory at all. It is analogous to stating "We don't fully understand Abiogenesis, so life could not have started this way." Exotic particles, ( X-bosons), formed in the first instant after the big bang and for reasons still unknown decayed preferentially to matter rather than antimatter. Theory suggests that antimatter reactions should mirror corresponding matter reactions in all respects. However, experiments with a particle called the neutral kaon (a quark-antiquark pair) show that, occasionally, this is not true. An equal mix of neutral kaons and their antiparticles decays to give an unequal amount of matter and antimatter, showing that the antimatter mirror is in some ways "flawed" (the term for this asymmetry is CP violation). As for the energy itself, sudden expansion from a singularity is the creative force of this. A singularity is an object of infinite density and mass. The amount of energy released by such an object at the moment of expansion would have been immense. This is where photons arrived from, which are essentially elemental quantum objects of energy, both particle and wave. "Let me rephrase, if logic and the laws of physics weren't present until the big bang, than logic and physics couldn't be applied to the big bang, in which case, none of the scientific theories and hypotheses can confirmed. If it was there, than it wasn't created by the big bang, in which case the big bang model is not a sufficient explanation. This is the logical conundrum which which makes the big bang model insufficient." Logic in the strict term is of course not applied to quantum or cosmological theory. Logic is a tool administered to arguments and statements. It can be applied to mathematical proofs but it is not the foundation for them. You are correct in stating the laws of standard physics were not present until the moment of expansion; however we also don't use them to explain the big bang singularity itself. A singularity due to its size is small enough to be considered a quantum mechanical object, and it is quantum theories that are used in its explanations. Quantum components and its rules existed because the singularity was present. Which brings us to a tidy close. Matter has been explained, baryonic asymmetry certainly doesn't negate the Big Bang Theory, and it is quantum principles that govern the big bang, not the constants after. An interesting topic, thanks for the speedy reply and non forfeits.
The Big Bang theory is not a sufficient explanation for creation.

"The analogy is a bit off as the typography of the universe is somewhat flatter than that. " Good point, I just copy pasted from Wiki on that one, as its explanation was far more eloquent than mine. "Big Bang Theory does NOT state matter has 'always existed'. " I won't quote your whole explanation, but in short, your explanation still requires photons and other forms of energy. Both energy and matter cannnot be created or destroyed, except through the metamorphosis per se between the two. The energy itself still requires an explanation for its existence, and while there may be one, the Big bang model does not provide the explanation. Also in the beginning an equal number baryons and antibaryons should have been formed. However, in the most distant parts of the universe, there is almost exclusively baryonic matter. This is an unexplainable symmetry that the Big Bang should not have caused. "Well yes and no. Physical constants are measurable forces/ attributes of this set universe. A theory that can explain the formation of the universe by default explains the presence of those components in the set universe. " Let me rephrase, if logic and the laws of physics weren't present until the big bang, than logic and physics couldn't be applied to the big bang, in which case, none of the scientific theories and hypotheses can confirmed. If it was there, than it wasn't created by the big bang, in which case the big bang model is not a sufficient explanation. This is the logical conundrum which which makes the big bang model insufficient. I hope I have provided a sufficient response, and I'm sorry that this debate is only two rounds long, as it would have proved to be even more interesting.
The Big Bang theory is not a sufficient explanation for creation.

Basically, I'm saying that the Big Bang theory cannot be completely true, in short, the world could not have been created solely through the Big Bang. Just a quick parameter, this debate is really geared towards science and physics rather than metaphysics, as I only have time for a short debate. According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common and useful analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. (Wikipedia) So this runs into two issues. One, the creation of this primordial matter is not explained. If it just has always been there, then it would pretty much be going against all of common knowledge, and physics. There had to be a beginning, and if the matter has always existed, than there would be no beginning. Also, the creation of nonphysical properties is not explained by the Big Bang model. Logic, the laws of physics, did they burst out of the mass as well. I think not. These two examples show that the Big Bang alone cannot create everything,and the Universe is everything. I challenge my opponent to resolve these issues.
Remaining with the Empire is in Skyrim's best interests. (TES V)

Skyrim still controls High Rock and Hammerfell and with Skyrim they can defeat the Aldermi dominion and legalize the worship of Talos. The Aldermi dominion is relevant because without the Empire Skyrim is hopeless. Also morally the empire is better. They handled the entire empire well during the Oblivion crisis. They sacrificed their emperors to save Everyone, including Skyrim. The Empire has had a fairly good record of efficiently managing the world, back when it used to rule all of it. They were quite liberal in terms of letting their conquered provinces maintain their ways of life, and only required following Imperial law, and tribute of blood and coin to the Emperor. The Stormcloak Rebellion is fledgling, and appears to have pretty poor governance. Ulfric is racially intolerant and unconcerned with trivial internal issues. Yeah, Tullius is kind of a dweeb. But he's just a general, he's not going to rule anything. I imagine that, in the game world, once Ulfric was defeated, the Empire would take immediate and dramatic steps toward reinstating loyal jarls, and most importantly, a new high king. Possibly the queen, but maybe not. Tullius is a non-factor for the aftermath. Ulfric Stormcloak is exceedingly power-hungry. This will not be good for Skyrim.
Remaining with the Empire is in Skyrim's best interests. (TES V)

Your definitions are acceptable. Thank you for accepting this debate. I also neglected to define BOP, so let's just say it's shared. Let me address the points in your opening arguments: 1) "The empire is all but oppressive to the Nords." I take this to mean that the Empire is not oppressive to the Nords. I disagree. A hallmark of Nord religious belief is in the worship of Talos, the ancient Second Era hero and first Emperor of the Septim dynasty who ascended to godhood, joining the Eight to make Nine. At the demand of the Aldmeri Dominion, the Empire has outlawed worship of Talos, thus infringing on the religious liberties of the Nords and any other citizens of the Empire who worship Talos. Talos also was known as Tiber Septim for part of his life; but he was born Talos of Atmora. [1] 2) "The empire doesn't like the Aldermi dominion either. Ulfric Stormcloak was the one who started this uprising and it is only delaying the empire in gathering troops to push back the Aldermi dominion." Whether or not the Empire "likes" the Aldmeri Dominion is irrelevant. If the strength of the Dominion is as great as they claim, then no amount of gathering forces is sufficient. But the Dominion, and their ruling council, the Thalmor, have always overstated their strength, all the way back to their inception at the end of the Oblivion crisis.[2] Furthermore, resistance to the Dominion in Hammerfell continued until 4E180, when the Redguards fought them to a stalemate; one of the conditions of the treaty was the complete withdrawal of Dominion forces from Hammerfell.[3] Hammerfell was ejected from the Empire following the signing of the White Gold Concordat, due to their refusal to accept the terms of the concordat.[4] Knowing this, one could easily conclude that the Nords of Skyrim would have fared similarly had High King Torygg had the same strength of character as the leaders of Hammerfell. 3) "Therefore the empire wants to aid Skyrim not harm it." Yes, they do want to aid it. However, they want to aid Skyrim on their own terms, and they want Skyrim's aid as well, to the ultimate detriment to Skyrim. What happens to the Empire if Skyrim secedes? Elsweyr belongs to the Dominion, and the empire lost Morrowind's might, and rule over Black Marsh, in the wake of the Red Year, and High Rock would become completely cut off from Cyrodiil; travelers would need to travel by sea through waters controlled by Hammerfell and/or the Dominion (it's unclear who controls those waters) or by Skyrim, or by land through Hammerfell or Skyrim.[6] Under these conditions, Cyrodiil might as well be considered to be standing alone, so it's no surprise that they are fighting fiercely to retain Skyrim. [1] Tiber Septim http://www.uesp.net... [2] Rising Threat, Volume II by Lathenil of Sunhold http://www.uesp.net... [3] Second Treaty of Stros M'kai http://www.uesp.net... [4] White Gold Concordat http://www.uesp.net... [5] The Great War by Legate Justianus Quintius http://www.uesp.net... [6] Tamriel map http://www.uesp.net...
Remaining with the Empire is in Skyrim's best interests. (TES V)

I accept and I am pleased to find a fellow gamer who is willing to be lore-friendly. To define terms I would like to define Empire as: the fourth age empire such as in skyrim. Aldermi dominion: Elven council that governs basically everything after the Great War. Skyrim: country as well as people creatures etc. Now I may not be as big of an expert but I know a bit. The empire is all but oppressive to the Nords. The Empire is a huge majority Nords. Tiber Septim, was the founder of the empire, was a Nord. The empire doesn't like the Aldermi dominion either. Ulfric Stormcloak was the one who started this uprising and it is only delaying the empire in gathering troops to push back the Aldermi dominion. Therefore the empire wants to aid Skyrim not harm it.
Remaining with the Empire is in Skyrim's best interests. (TES V)

Round 1: resolution, acceptance, definitions, rules, and what-not. Pro may begin arguments at this time, or wait until Round 2. Rounds 2 and 3: Arguments and rebuttals. Round 4: Closing arguments and final rebuttals. Voting: RFD not required, but requested. Resolution: That Skyrim's continuing status as a province of the Cyrodiilic Empire, Mede Dynasty, is of a net positive effect on the province of Skyrim, and thus severing this tie is not in Skyrim's best interests; and that Ulfric Stormcloak's goals are at odds with the safety of the province. I will be taking the Con (Stormcloak) position; accepting this debate means you will take the Pro (Imperial) position. Definitions: Any dispute over the definition of a game-specific term will be settled using either the Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages [1] or the Imperial Library [2]; other wikis may be acceptable if they are not hosted by Wikia, and are related to Skyrim specifically or the Elder Scrolls series generally. For non-game-specific terms, the common, context-appropriate definition should be inferred. Sources: The preferred sources are the UESP [1] and Imperial Library [2]; other wikis may be acceptable if they are not hosted by Wikia, and are related to Skyrim specifically or the Elder Scrolls series generally. The setting of the subject of this debate is the Province of Skyrim, continent of Tamriel, plane(t) of Nirn, in the year 201 of the 4th Era as time is kept by that province (4E201 for short). The events of the DLCs "Dawnguard" and "Dragonborn" shall not be considered. The events of the other games and the two books in the Elder Scrolls universe may be considered, if relevant. This debate should be accepted in a light hearted manner; I expect a serious debate, though not a hostile one. Humor is allowed and even encouraged. General Tullius wears a red nightie and dances in the mirror when no one is looking. [1] http://www.uesp.net... [2] http://imperial-library.info...
Should violent juveniles be tried as adults

I am fervently opposed to my opponents view that "juveniles should be tried as adults for various reasons".As it turns out, I've done quite a bit of research on this very subject. From the very first round, my opponent is making a lot a broad strokes with his "pen" that simply are untrue.First of all, most young children have no concept of truth vs. lie. There are numerous experiments that have been conducted where small children, even after "swearing on a bible", would openly discuss having a good time with their best friend - their friendly neighborhood dragon or unicorn, having talks with them, taking them for rides, etc. In open court - mind you. Little children simply have not developed the skills required to understand the difference between reality and make-believe. Their coping mechanisms for this world we live in is completely different from the one that adults have. For this reason alone, in most courts in the world, children's testimony is often discarded or even not allowed in the first place.Second, historically the treatment of juvenile offenders as adults has led to many abuses. A perfect example of this is the story of George Junius Stinney Jr., who was executed at the age of 14 in 1944. Just read this page in wikipedia and tell yourself how this was justice: http://en.wikipedia.org.... There was even a film made to showcase this injustice (see youtube link): http://www.youtube.com.... Children simply aren't equipped to deal with our modern justice system. The idea that a public defender and a bunch of lying police officers are going to somehow make "justice happen" is silly - there are literally thousands of examples that we know of when the system has failed for adults; We shouldn't believe that children have any better chances than adults when it comes to navigating their legal rights.There is a perfect example of just how skewed the point of view for children is: There is a well known story about young children being used to blow themselves up by the Taliban with explosive vests. They are told that they are martyrs and that the explosion will only "blow outward" and not harm them. Believe it or not, there is a known instance of at least one child having been captured alive, explained the truth & released back to his family, and then being captured again a second time with more explosive strapped to his body. How can anyone argue that these kids are guilty? http://www.newser.com...http://www.washingtontimes.com...http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
NiamC's Music Tourney R1

I never have the time to record my songs multiple times. Which is why in the last video I accidentally changed the record volume during the non-vocal bit in the middle. Oh, and if you want to see me majorly stuff up my timing in this one and not have time to re-record and correct it (leading to me rather jarringly having to play a note again), I think it's just after the 4 minute mark or so in the video. :) Also, sorry that the quality of the video isn't that great for me in this round. Thanks for a fun competition. Just a few quick reminders for voters: - Vote based on whos piece was performed nicer - vote based on whos piece sounded nicer. -Vote based on Technicality used (speed, accents etc) - Vote based on quality of piece, not video or audio or quality. -Dont vote against someone because of the length of the piece, if the piece is longer; you should consider this as a quality of the sides playing skills i.e. durability. - Before voting, do not take the sides playing standard level into consideration. And also, I mention this in my intro, but leaving feedback would be much appreciated by both of us I'm sure! What you like and don't like, and how you think we can improve.