BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Disney should bring back Anakin Skywalker from the Force Spirit Realm

That's outrageous, It's unfair. Put him in a movie and not bring him back. While I totally see the values of your point of view, Bringing Skywalker back would bring joy to thousands of fans. On a personal note, I've created my own star wars universe where Anakin, Obi-Wan, And Yoda bring themselves back from the spirit realm, Anakin revives padme and reports to the Jedi council (who heard the threat of Order 66 and had clones of themselves made which were destroyed during Order 66) and Anakin is removed from the Jedi Order. Anakin, However, Takes Padme, Luke, And Leia and re starts the Rebel Alliance, Running a Jedi council of his own based around his his core beliefs and one where relationships are not forbidden. This new jedi order is based on Naboo and these jedi are trained in both the light and dark side, Full representation of the Grand Master Anakin Skywalker, And with Captain Rex placed in control of Anakin's Clone and Stormtrooper army, This 3rd party power against the Galactic Republic and the First Order proves its worth. This view into the Star Wars universe would prove to make an outstanding movie, And I think many will agree. The way I see it, The Jedi are evil
Disney should bring back Anakin Skywalker from the Force Spirit Realm

Be it resolved that Disney should not bring Anakin back from the spirit realm. Hello there I've been looking forward to this Anakin had a completed arc. At the start of the series he has rage he won't deal with, Which consumes him. This rage and fear turns him into the dark lord Darth Vader. Afterwhich he decides to deal with his hatred to protect his son and becomes one with the force. Its a complete arc that was satisfying to watch. Disney would screw it up. They have the worst habit of taking talented directors and reshooting the crap out of them to the point that not just the men, But the women and children to are unsatisfied. I don't like disney's terrible practices. They are rough, Course, And get into everything. Darth vader has a full and complete arc that is fun and satisfying to watch. If Disney tried to add to it, They would become the very thing they swore to destroy. Don't say that disney should absolutly bring back Anakin. Only sith deal in absolutes
Disney should bring back Anakin Skywalker from the Force Spirit Realm

Star Wars is a story based around Anakin Skywalker and his growth as a jedi and then his fall to the dark side. "Return of the Jedi" marked his return to the light side. As per George Lucas's intent of Star Wars being a story based around Anakin Skywalker, Disney should put some imagination into coming up with a way Anakin grows strong enough in the force to return from the Force Spirit Realm as a living human being and a powerful young jedi knight like he was before he became Darth Vader.
Disney should bring back Anakin Skywalker from the Force Spirit Realm

(me when I see you that you ended a debate politely and not with ranting like others) Uh, That does not compute Uh, Wait, Uh YOUR UNDER ARREST! Personally, I kind of believe that the return of darth vader would be cooler, But that's just my opinion. Still not the biggest fan of the I don't like sand guy. Still, Good debate, You went pretty strong for your first one. To quote Yoda: "If you end your training now " if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did " you will become an agent of evil. " He also said something about not liking seagulls, But that's non-canon now. Stupid disney.
Disney should bring back Anakin Skywalker from the Force Spirit Realm

This is how liberty dies. . . . . . With thunderous applause While I have fought hard to make my point, I'm tired of making this argument. This probably hurts my claim but being honest, While you can attack me with facts and cannon, All my attacks must come based off my dream of the Return of Anakin Skywalker. I do believe it can be done and I would love to see it happen and I can see a great storyline to go with it. That being said, I digress and will keep this tab short. I want to thank you W0LV3NBANE for giving me a strong first debate on debate. Org and I hope maybe we will meet again in another debate thread. May the Force be with you W0LV3NBANE
Disney should bring back Anakin Skywalker from the Force Spirit Realm

Your new empire? My allegiance is to the republic to DEMOCRACY! I wish I could drive my fist through this whole rotten beautiful DISNEY. Be it resolved that Disney should not bring back Anakin. . . (I'm going to stop typing this out its getting annoying) I know this isn't a big thing, But you made a straw man fallacy. You attacked a point I didn't make. You say I claimed that they were "Lifeless" and "Had no meaning" when I didn't say that at all in my previous points. That being said, Solo and the last Jedi were convoluted, Boring, And unmemorable films. Good. I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred, And your journey towards the dark side will be complete. That being said, I have all ready stated my opinion on those films. Last Jedi claimed to be subversive when in reality it was just unsatisfying. I recommend you watch this video. It says what I can't https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=uiXk6mEM_tU Solo played it safe, So it just felt like another boring forgettable kids movie. When I finished watching films like Revenge of the Sith or Attack of the Clones (which I love but are awful) at least I feel and remember something, Even if its just confusion. And now, To rebbut your preposition on Episode 9. To restate what you said, Episode 9 has already been filmed. Even if it wasn't, Your idea on the film is NOT something DISNEY would do. As you know, Disney likes to play it way too safe for that. It's why we've gotten so little old republic content from them, Because they don't know if the Old Republic will make them the most money. Because at the end of the day, That's what Disney wants from you. Money. Now concerning Anakin Skywalker. What do most people think of the prequels? They hated them. George Lucas continued to make prequel content because he saw the potential there. And I don't think Disney willing to look past the critical reception. For example, Think clone wars. A deep and interesting series taking place in the era of the prequels. It was dark, Had mature themes, And was good for both kids and adults. And it was a labour of love that made us normal folk love the world of the prequels. Honestly, I doubt we would remember that era of starwars lore so fondly if it weren't for clone wars. Then Disney bought Lucasarts. And do you know what happens? We lose clone wars and get rebels instead, Which to me is too boring and chalk full of comic relif charcters. Its like half the cast is freaking jar jar binks. MEESA DO NOT A LIKA BOMBAD SHOW. Finally, Yes, Disney is now releasing the 7th season of clone wars. Capital word being releasing. (Whats a capital word? Nevermind). Season 7 was already planned and written in advance. I think disney just went, Screw it! What the heck! If its already made and will make us money, Fine! All the movies disney has made have been after the prequels, In the era that made the most money. Even their new films that I like, Such as force awakens, Have a uncanny resemblance to the original trilogy. Is it legal to add a prequel quote for no reason? Screw it I WILL MAKE IT LEGAL
Presidents of the United States should be allowed two terms, but the terms should not be consecutive

Considering I provided rebuttal last round and in this debate burdon of proof rest with Pro since the proposed changed is what he is advocating, I find I have nothing to do this round.So for those reading this debate, your probably someone who gets into politics enough to find this video amusing, please enjoy.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...there both of the same song, one is a video and the other is a live perfomance. I couldnt decide which I thought was more entertaining.
Presidents of the United States should be allowed two terms, but the terms should not be consecutive

The advantage you speak of in the returning president to most likely be elected again is correct. The question is if this is the correct event to happen. Many people when they go into the voting poll and vote on which president they want to be elected are bias to the person whom they have seen representing the Presidency for the past two years. Mostly, these people don"t know all ins and outs of the president and are not making an educated vote on it. So, is the advantage of the president really a good thing for the country as a whole or is a person getting elected from an uneducated public. I am not affiliated with any political party and believe that in different points in the history of the United States the two political parties, Democrats and Republicans are needed to solve different problems. To the best candidate goes the presidency. You are correct the President does have to worry about being reelected during his first term, but this is done through being a good president for the country and making decisions that the citizens are benefited by. What presidents do now is at the end of their first term they start making commercials, going to different states to make speeches, talk to the people hours on end, and enter into debates with the other candidates. With all the things the president has to do every day to keep the country running They don"t have time to do all of this campaigning for the next term, but they do it anyway. What the non-consecutive terms does for the country is have the president focus on being a good president their first term to get reelected again in four years. Then during the four years he can focus going to speeches and going to debates for the next presidency. Yes, the candidate would have to get to the top of their own political party again to be able to run again for president, but it still goes back to the saying, "To the victor, goes the spoils"
Presidents of the United States should be allowed two terms, but the terms should not be consecutive

Presidents campaign for becoming Presidents. then get elected. But while elected are they worrying about how to run the country or are they worrying about getting elected elected again. Terms that are split apart can get rid of this distraction to the President. When they get out of their first term they then have four years to campaign for becoming president for the next term while someone else is focused on being president. This would also work will many other seats in politics.
Asteroid Mining

Topicality? You mean refuting your arguments was not on topic? By stating that every Reference site you got your information from did not give any credible evidence for your side of this debate? Or how about the fact that you did not use one single thought or idea of your own? Is that not plagiarizing when every sentence of your whole argument was that your own reference site? Further more your your not debating my arguments your merely re-emphasizing yours when I have already de-bunked and by your very own admission which I quote "5. I never said asteroid mining shouldn't be outlawed, just not done. The article states that U.S. has started asteroid mining production" You would have lost this debate seeing as how question at hand is "should asteroid mining be outlawed" even furthermore, what you picked from the treaty further demonstrates my idea of a co-op mission to mine which by that treaty would not be illegal. (also it should be pointed out that even the part of the treated you picked does not say anything about mining it says one nation cannot claim any asteroid) I have nothing to dispute this round because my opponent did not argue any of my points. Whilst I have already de-bunked all of his. So I would like to take this round to invite my opponent to give me either One credible source that his statements are true. (which again I would like to point out in the earlier round I have proved he left out some very key details while he copied his text) Or concede in his arguments.
Asteroid Mining

The Pro didn't answer Topicality last round which means his whole last round didn't even count and with Topicality being the most important issue in debate being unanswered. The debate is over, but I'll still continue. 1st of all it isn't plagiarism it is cut cards by me, for debate. So if you charge me with plagiarism you're charging the whole NFL with it. 1. No if you get large amount of asteroids minerals and bring them to Earth to sell and cheaper to you put China out of work. 2. So your plan costs x and we're in debt. It would cause deficit spending. And if your planning to get your funding investors well people know the econ is down, people aren't going to be happy. 3. You're plan causes space debris making space uninhabitable to the point to where we can't even leave the atmosphere. 4. The Treaty states this: a. outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means b. the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind c. States shall be liable for damage caused (space debris) 5. I never said asteroid mining shouldn't be outlawed, just not done. The article states that U.S. has started asteroid mining production. Points still standing 1. REMs won't run out any time soon 2. Topicality 3. He doesn't give the company he is doing this through, so we can assume it could be the Iraqi's which isn't U.S.
Asteroid Mining

Before I make my counter arguments I would like to ask my opponent to stop plagiarizing his debate, please make your own arguments and not copy and past your reference sites as arguments. A reference site should be used to prove your own points. Rebuttal 1. Your reference site is not proving mining asteroids will put china out of work it is simply posing the question. Nowhere in your reference site, or the text you copied from it does it give concrete evidence that such a collapse in their economy would happen. Further more you did not copy the whole article. Conveniently you left out the end paragraph which states: "So you could wind up with two human economies: A controlled, stable-state one on Earth, and a crazily free market one off world." therefore the best answer to the question this article raises is: No! mining would not crumble jobs in China because there would be a controlled market on earth. Rebuttal 2... Again what you copied from this article does not offer any kind of evidence that mining in space has negative effects and I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with our debate? While I agree that 9 out of 10 Americans economic rating as poor is a sad thing, It has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. And frankly I'm a little upset I had to waste my time to read this. rebuttal 3.. Once again while copying this article you left out important details. Lets say for instance that only one person in the history of mankind has ever been hit by space debris. Oh and they lived to talk about it. Also I would like to point out that since this debris is not harmful perhaps your aforementioned argument of "poor" Americans can get paid to find and recover this debris, turning it into a job rather then a problem Rebuttal 4... The 1967 Space Treaty Does not outlaw mining asteroids, you lied about this and would invite you point out the specific text that outlaws this. The Whole treaty can be found here http://www.state.gov... Rebuttal 5.... Well congrats to molycorp. and congrats that you never lost your lust for copying articles.. However an article about a mine oping does not have any baring on weather asteroid mining should be outlawed.
Asteroid Mining

Round 1 This debate is about if we as a people should increase space exploration and development of space beyond the Earths mesosphere, more specifically by mining asteroids with today's technology. The answer to this question is absolutely yes! my arguments are as follows: 1... COST A.....Start small! There is no need to spend billions of dollars to mine an asteroid that we are not even sure can be mined. It would make much more economical sense to spend a far less money first to see A) if the substance's that are in these asteroids are in fact worth mining, and B) to see if we have the technology to even break through the surface. Either way it is important to fund the exploration of these asteroids for both safety reasons (as my next point will address) and to see if there is any beneficial substances found within to benefit the human race as a whole. B.... Co-op! If we can worth together with both Russia and China the cost would drop significantly. ( I would like to point however that this most likely would not happen, but it is one way to cut cost dramatically.) And we should be doing everything in out power to figure out the cheapest way to fund these space missions, because they can prove to be one of the most useful projects ever funded in the history of mankind. We just will never know unless we are able to actually do it. 2.... Safety Okay lets pretend for a second there is a speeding asteroid veering towards earth at million's miles per hour doomed to wipe out mankind as we know it. Well guess what If we do not have a better understanding of these asteroid's we really don't have a great chance to protect ourselves. if we don't know the genetic structure of these massive objects we really do not know, if we have a way of destroying them. Simple funding a mission to mine for samples would give us such a far more understanding of these objects and a dramatically increase chance to survive a doomsday type scenario
Asteroid Mining

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase exploration and or development of space, beyond the Earth's mesosphere by mining astriods with todays tech. I'll let the Pro go first the the first round 2-4. Hell Fire and Brim stone 5. The Death of the debate (no new arguments) http://www.youtube.com... If any of these rules are violated then the violator forfeits I'll be against it and there will be topicality in this round (policy debate without cross-x) timeframe ust be less than a decade
Asteroid Mining

My opponent not only broke his own rules by adding a new argument in the fifth round. "4. no has done it doesn't mean it can't happen. Look at the Nukes we got allot and can cause a nuclear war. " but has also not refuted any other of my arguments which can only lead me to believe that con agrees with all my points and counter points I have made throughout this "debate" Conclusion. .. . The only conclusion I have made is I feel bad for the people that have to read this so called "debate. " I have listed my arguments which have gone unchallenged until the fifth round which broke the rules. furthermore My opponent has not giving a shred of evidence that anything he said was true. I have pointed out my opponent left out vital information which contradicted his own arguments from his own reference site. I have also pointed out his miss information about the space treaty of 1967. I do not think my opponent read any of my arguments. and As much as I like to keep these debates civil . .. I would like to end by telling my opponent that I am not thankful for taking part of this "debate" you have done nothing but waste the time of me and the readers. And further more I will never debate you again because I Do not think you understand how a debate works as for voting period, If anyone has even bothered to read this far down.
Asteroid Mining

1. Rems wont run out any time soon... (the need to do it) ... my argument incase you missed it was safety we need to mine these substances to understand them better so we can protect ourselves In doomsday type situation 2. Topicaitity.... (no answer for this, your just being ignorant, and refusing to debate my arguments and repeating yours) 3. Sill wont clarify how he was getting his money.... I offered to suggestions in my first round which leads me to a conclusion you didn't even read my arguments 4. Dropped space debris... again which I quoted your source by saying that one person in the history of mankind was ever hit by space debris and it did not even kill them... therefore this is not a vaild threat, also I suggested an Idea to make jobs out of recovering this debris, 5. China.... As I also had pointed out already in the first round. your source does not give strong evidence that anything would happen, it merely poses the question IF it could happen. My arguments are still standing and have yet to be refuted which are listed in the first round. Off topic but I would like to say sorry for the readers of this debate, if you read everything thus far there has been no new information and my opponent refuses to debate my points. I have de-bunked his and this is just repeating himself over and over..
Asteroid Mining

Topicaltity is a policy debate topic and is the most important and if you read the 1st round it is a policy debate with Topicality so if you don't answer it you're considered cheatin. Second of all I cut cards for debate if I loose to plagerism then you charge half a million people with it. 1. aye, but you said you were going solo and it is against the resolution. My points still standing 1. REMs won't run out any time soon (which knocks out his Inherancy (the need to do it) 2. Topicality 3. Still didn't clearify how he was getting his money 4. dropped space debris 5. dropped China agruement
homework should not be banned

Defense 1st This argument is completely non-uniqe my opponent says that the homework we got assigned showed him how to debate, but he has yet to show why this could not have happened in a classroom setting, therefore this argument should not be a voting issue. 2. Cross Apply my testing argument to respond to, tests are more objective than homework, and they can measure the same things. 2. My opponent says that constant checking of progress is important, this is also non-unique to homework short 2 minute daily quizzes everyday can accomplish the same thing. 3. "There is simply not enough time during every class to achieve all the goals of the course. Teachers provide students with all relevant information but it's students' duty to search the material further. "Practice makes perfect" but there is a difference between practicing in class and at home. Students need to learn how to work without any guidance so they can succeed in future jobs" Extend my extracurricular argument this it solves for this. 4. "Education is a process that never stops. Practicing in different atmospheres helps students to adapt better to different circumstances. " I am not arguing that education should stop, and the adaptation argument is void because studying does not count as homework, and students would have to do it at home, therefore they would adapt. Now why homework is bad (my opponent has REPEATEDLY ignored these arguments- you must vote con) Extend my offense 1st: There is no bright-line, students are at school for nearly half of there day, if they cannot learn in that much time, than there is teaching flaw, and not a student issue. This argument was not refuted, and therefore my opponent cannot win this debate, because this argument is apriori without an answer to this argument the rest of the debate is useless. 2nd: It limits creativity: When students are wasting time doing mindless homework they tradeoff time they could use applying the skills they have learned at school. Instead of wasting time writing a literature paper students could be having debates about books, or instead of people spending time on calculus homework, they could be applying that in a construction setting. 3rd: homework prevents students from developing: students are on a permanent training wheel, and they never fully develop, they do not learn how to study on their own, and they do not learn how to pace themselves.