BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THBT we should abolish special purpose schools.

First what country shoudnt abolish special purpose schools.you didnt specefie so i will talk in a word scalle. Statement ( We will lose the brains!!!!!!!!!!!)how is we what counrie. now my argument:in chilie the private schools where so much better than the public one that it created unfairness when the peopel where searching for jobs.the employeurs always choosed the studiants with the private schoul diplom ,making it such a problem thath chilie considerd privitaze the schools of the country for make up for the un-ballence.so privette scholls can create political un balenc in a country proved by the mass protests in chili not so long ago, foreign language schools are freaking usseless what better to learn a language to be surounded by peopel how talk the language.international schools are a injust because ussually there students get better carrer paths because it ussually in most country has good reputation because the ministers sons are there ,so you give students more chances to get jobs because wath their father do for a living? all students should have a new beginnig
NBA 2k games are better than NBA Live games

So I assume that you play Live video games and you are here to defend NBA Elite 11's terrible debut as EA had to recall all their games because they could not compete with nba 2k11. I should let you know that ign, a popular game rating site has labeled all nba Live games inferior to nba 2k games. I'm not lying check for yourself. http://search.ign.com... Live for years have been trying to get people to buy their games buy selling new gimmicks such as player dna or like next generation. Now a recent idea that backfired on them features players that are in control of their own shots. Now if a player had a chance, he can make every single shot he shoots by lining up the joystick. Keep in mind that in this new game of Live, the same joystick that is used for shooting is the same joystick that is used for dribbling... how does this work out.
NBA 2k games are better than NBA Live games

My opponent says that Live will make better basketball games. Of course Live games get better every year. New games of the same title are expected to be better than the last game that came out. So if we had this debate 6 years ago... you would say the same thing if they needed Live to be better they would make it better. But, every single year they are not better than the 2k series. As a matter of fact they are so bad now that the new Live games are being recalled. Live is a joke. Every single year people who play Live always say. NEXT YEAR it will be better when it isn't. Will Live ever be better than 2k.
Impromptu Debate.

I thought I had the neg? My bad. PRO, I affirm that poker should be aired on sports networks. Many activities are regarded as sports as sports can have a very loose definition. While I would consider bowling and NASCAR to be more recreational, there are those who would vehemently argue for their staus as a sport. Further, many events in both the Summer and Winter Olympics are questionable in my opinion, yet they are regarded as sports. Given the aforementioned, it is then reasonable to consider poker a sport, and worthy to be aired to sports network channels. NEG: National Healthcare in the USA I negate the topic regarding National Healthcare in the USA The present healthcare situation is very unclear to the layman, quite possibly intended as such. It has received numerous bipartisan arguments in it's opposition. The enigmatic and ambiguity associated with this healthcare bill continues to be a sore spot in the USA with several states threatening to veto it. I think that a national healthcare system is needed, but would rather see something patterned after that of the U.S. military. All medical staff are hired, trained, and paid by the military. Military members receive healthcare at no cost. This system works extremely well as demonstrated by the largest employer in the USA, the USA military, therefore it could reasonably be argued that such a system could be augmented in the USA at large.
Impromptu Debate.

Just for a little clarification, I give you the topics you are to debate. Apologies for confusion. they're in the comments. and I, in turn, will debate one of yours. Fortunately, I wasn't planning on debating about the home run king. I have selected: 3) Poker is not a sport, and should not appear on ESPN or FSN. Poker is clearly not a sport. It is a game. this is quite simple - it is, as many other card games, a game of chance. A hand of poker (for one player) lasts less than five minutes and exerts very little physical energy as a sport should. A sport requires organized and competitive physical activity with fair play and governed by rules. Furthermore, sports are not played distinctly for the purpose of the players to gamble money. One can rule that Poker is not about fair play, as any player who can cheat in a casual and efficient manner will do so. There is no 'referee', and there is no aspect of sportsmanship. In the Wild West, gamblers were famed for shooting opponents. Now, ESPN is thus a sports news network. It should concentrate upon covering legitimate sports rather than facades such as poker. Poker is only interesting in that a great degree of money is involved and the players have often mastered a casual appearance. Yet, it is a waste of revenue for the ESPN network. Also, it consumes time in which some legitimate sport requiring physical activity could be featured. I myself was annoyed to once find a poker match consuming ESPN's airtime during an important baseball game. Hence, it is not only that Poker isn't a sport, but it is unfair to the viewer to have to tolerate it consuming airtime instead of an interesting and exhilarating activity that actually fits the definition of 'sport'. Cheers
Impromptu Debate.

Unfortunately, on paper, it would appear that Barry Bonds has hit more homeruns than anyone. His career stats are suspectr though due to his alledged use of steroids. Henry Aaron amassed a number of homeruns over a long career without any hint of impropriety, yet less than Bonds. No records exist to verify Josh Gibson's 800 plus homers. Therefore, Hank Aaron IS the TRUE Homerun King of all time.
Impromptu Debate.

Greetings to my opponent! This is going to be a debate styled in an 'Impromptu' fashion. Each round will only have ten minutes in which my opponent and I are to post. This first round is merely to explain the rules and introduce onseself as willing to debate. It will work like this. I will formulate three topics and post them in comments for my opponent. My opponent will then pick one of them and argue Pro/Con regarding that topic alone (not mine). Just before my opponent accepts the challenge and posts, s/he will also post three topics in comments of which I will pick one to debate as soon as round 2 begins. Since I have issued no invitations, I will wait for approximately half an hour and then remove this debate from the challenges (or edit it). Have fun, keep it clean!
National Security ought to be valued above Freedom of the Press

Although I hate technicalities, in this round I would like to proceed with a technical refutation of his argument, which it has been hinted upon, but not properly addressed in the previous round. I will try to make precise and concise statements in order to leave myself room to discuss the points that he raised in this round. The technical refutation goes as follows and has two aspects: The first aspect of the refutation is that a definition of National Security has been provided by my opponent in the second round as follows: "National Security: relates ONLY (my capital letters) to those activities which are directly concerned with the nation's safety (Cole v. Young, http://definitions.uslegal.com......)" (round 2) My opponent chose to use the Cole v. Young in order to ground his definition, which refers to the dismissal of federal employees! (http://supreme.justia.com...) The dismissal of an employee has nothing to do with Freedom of the Press. To my defense comes the directly relevant case of NY Times vs the United States and the ruling of the Court (which "judged whether the 1st Amendment freedom of the press was absolute or if it could be abridged in favor of national security".) http://www.phschool.com... (note: I am from Greece, but I am using the 1st Amendment as I believe the case is made is the context of US Laws) Even if he chose the first paragraph of the definition in the source that he cited (which I accept as a source) it still wouldn't be sufficient for him to warrant the initial claim. My refutation of the extended definition has to do with morality and the "ought to " morally connecting conjunction. Here's the problem with the extended definition... it goes without saying that the definition must hold true for the entire scope of the definition. Since the term "National Security" was employed in the construction of his premise, UNQUALIFIED and therefore in its totality, if I can show that an aspect of the definition fails to surpass in importance the Freedom of the Press, then I am justified in considering the definition refuted. 1st argument ( with moral obligation considered) Freedom of the Press must hold true for every nation and every government. It is a fact that more than two nations and governments exist. Now, let's suppose that the Press of a Foreign Nation is free and it provides another (our) government with important information for its National Security. Unless we have a Double Standard for Morality, then we will come up with the paradoxical conclusion that we have to consider as morally inferior something that offers an advantage to our National Security! If anything, in this context, Freedom of the Press is NOT LESS IMPORTANT. Our Moral Obligation would apply for OUR NATION, but NOT TO OTHER NATIONS. I would like to ask my opponent WHERE does he make the claim in his argument that National Morality has DOUBLE STANDARDS. Nowhere! Unfortunately I logged in a bit late to further continue with my argument...I am sorry about that!
Ron Paul is the number one candidate for president.

I would love to know why destroying the department of education is a bad idea! This wouldn't destroy schools, merely let them free from the restrictive funding. The literacy rate in the 1800s when schools weren't required and parents paid teachers directly, the literacy rate was 98%. Nowadays what is the literacy rate? Around 70-80%. Read the book "Public Schools, Public Menace" You'd have a cow seeing how much destroying the department of education would help this country. Second, Ron Paul is not a constitution addict. He wouldn't destroy a branch of the military because "his leader didn't like it" He merely disagrees and fights passing laws that extremely violate our rights, such as the hated and illegal, Patriot Act. Third, who is your candidate. It would make it much easier for me to understand where you are coming from. I'll guess Hillary, but it's probably O'Bama. Maybe Giuliani? I don't know. Just a little news announcement, Ron Paul raised 6 million+ on December 16, his huge fundraiser day. In my next argument, I'll post those debate links that I promised.
Ron Paul is the number one candidate for president.

First of all, it is always important in any debate to define your terms. Also, support or "hatred" for George W. Bush are not sufficient indicators of presidential muster. Now I will list some of the reasons that Ron Paul is not the "best" candidate. One, he supports the elimination of most government programs such as the department of education which helps millions of economically disadvantaged young Americans attend college. Two, he supports the strict interpretation of the constitution. While this seems admirable to some observers, his view does not take into account the mailable nature of the document. Given a strict interpretation of the document, there is no need for an Air Force since those powers are not directly attributed under the stated powers of the federal government. While I support some of his views concerning "Big Brother" paranoia (For example, a national ID card) and the repeal of most drug laws, I don't see why Ron Paul is the "best" candidate for America.
All elected and appointed government officials should be paid minimum wage.

I'll hit each of your contentions as well. 1.) Teaching jobs pay better than minimum wage. Sure there are gunna be a few people who will take the job, but those most qualified are going to find better paying jobs. No one wants to go to college for at least 4 years to get payed minimum wage. If we want to continue to have qualified and hard-working individuals running this country, we need to pay them fairly. 2.) Running a congressional seat takes a lot more work and more hours than running a burger stand. Whether or not they are getting good approval ratings, they are still doing the work and still deserve to be paid thusly. 3.) Ok...as far as three goes...i'll take that point. Nice one... 4.) Its enough to live by for someone with less to pay for. Minimum wage is designed mostly for single young adults who need to pay rent and other basic expenses. These office holders are providing for a family. They need to be able to feed themselves as well as their kids. Odds are, they have a mortgage to pay. Not a rent. They have other expenses as well such as life insurance, more health insurance, more car insurance, homeowners insurance. These things would be absolutely necessary for people of their circumstances. If they were paid minimum wage they would have to declare bankruptcy and lose everything. Generally speaking, the people living off of minimum wage dont have these expenses. 5.) It should be special because government officials do it a lot more. My dad works for the government. He spends hours at home doing work. The same applies to other government officials. They spend hours doing this kind of work. The government would literally be stiffing them if they ignored these hours. Besides, there would be all kinds of conflicts and even lawsuits over paychecks. Not worth it. 6.) They Liberal isnt saying that its enough to live by, but he still gets the punishment??? There is no logic to that. Its like those days back in elementary school when one could threw a paper ball and the whole class had to stay in from recess. Lets punish everyone for on man's crime??? I think not... The fact of the matter is that these people have earned more and they need more. Whether or not you agree with them about minimum wage, they deserve their pay, just like i deserve my 12 dollars an hour. Giving them a few weeks on minimum wage is on thing, but only paying them minimum wage is far too unreasonable for the work that they do and the things that they accomplish.
All elected and appointed government officials should be paid minimum wage.

It's fine. This'll just be a shorter argument. I'll hit each of your contentions. 1.) There will always be people who want to be in office. Teaching jobs don't pay well, but there are still kids that want to be teachers. If anything, this will help us get a better pool of only people who are truly committed. 2.) Who says it isn't fair? this seems a bit more subjective to me. and besides, In general, our major branches of government aren't getting high approval ratings. why should we be paying them more for a job where they're not performing well? 3.) Ah, but with the amount of funds the government would be saving from these wage cuts, there'd be more than enough to pay for flights and hotels when needed. 4.) Yeah. They'd be poorer. That's the point. They say that this is enough to live by, so they should try to live by it. 5.) You can figure out a system for that. That's really just a technical argument. the main idea is that they have to be paid by minimum wage. A little technicality like that isn't enough to vote CON. And I don't see why they can't be paid hourly for that, either. How long do these meetings and phone calls last? that's how you pay them right there. And as for the working on paper work at home, there are a lot of people who work on paper work at home and don't get any pay for it (they still get hourly pay). Why should it be special for government officials? 6.) Okay, so the liberal who wants to raise minimum wage has to live by it too. Once again, they're setting the minimum wage, they should live by it, regardless of political ideology. It's just a basic ideological point that if someone says that this is enough to live by, they should be willing to live by it. This could even improve those liberals' outlooks on the situation, as they'll have firsthand experience, and know what actually needs to be done concerning minimum wage. 7.) I refer you to my rebuttal to your second point. Thank you. You thought of some arguments that I wasn't expecting. Keep in mind when writing your rebuttal that I won't have a chance to respond. So, try to be fair to me, I guess. :)
All elected and appointed government officials should be paid minimum wage.

First, I'd like to apologize for bailing on you the last round. I was visiting my fiancï¿½ for a week and didn't have time. Poor judgment in thinking I could make time for debate.org…lol Now, on to your points. I can definitely understand where you're coming from and the idea sounds like a fun kick in the pants to certain elected officials. The truth is, however, that this would be very impractical and unfair. I will list the problems below. 1.No one is going to want to run for office. We need these officials. Their positions are absolutely required for success, and if we don't pay them enough, their not gunna run for office. We'll be up the creek without an elected official… 2.Most people make more than minimum wage. Even a lot of fast food joints now pay a bit over minimum wage. To pay elected officials less than the bus boy at burger king is not fair. 3.Elected officials require a higher pay rate because they have to pay for things we don't. The government is very stingy about their office cost allowance, and officials often have to pay their own way on flights, hotels, car rentals, office meals, required dinners and social functions. They could never afford all of these, let alone food and shelter. 4.These elected officials certainly enjoyed a specific lifestyle before they were elected. Dropping their pay so much could result in them loosing their house or car. They'd have to drop cable and internet. They wouldn't be able to afford things like healthcare. You'd be dooming them to the poor house 5.How would you determine hourly pay? These people work often 24-7. Phone calls, late night meeting, paperwork at home. They couldn't just clock in for these hours. There would be too much argument over how many hours they truly worked. 6.Not all elected officials agree on minimum wage anyway. You might get a good kick on the die-hard republican, but your also kicking the liberal who wants to raise them for you. 7.Lastly, the world pays an individual what it thinks their worth based on their past. The fact of the matter is, outside of teenagers, who have very little in expenses, the people working minimum wage jobs are mostly those who didn't put in the effort to get a better job and/or education. Those running for office are getting paid better because they have earned better. They have worked harder and put in more effort. They deserve the extra pay.
All elected and appointed government officials should be paid minimum wage.

First, I extend the idea that people who say that minimum wage is enopugh to live off of should live off of it. Now I'll address onne of the problems commonly associated with raising minimum wage and show why it doesn't apply: inflation. The problem is that when we raise wages, prices go up, so they cancel each other out. But when we follow this resolution, we are giving our representatives a direct incentive to find a balance. They'll want to have wages that aren't negated by inflation. Therefore, it will continued to be altered until a a balanced has been achieved. They'll want to achieve a balance because it is directly affecting them. This will ultimately have a huge positive effect on those living off of minimum wage. The transition period might be tough, but ultimately, it will get better.
All elected and appointed government officials should be paid minimum wage.

This is just a different take on the minimum wage issue. This isn't about raising or lowering it, although this resolution could have that effect. Since this isn't about whether minimum wage is good or bad, I'll ask that my opponent not run a critique, saying that minimum wage shouldn't be used at all. That is not the point of this debate. The central idea of the PRO is that government officials are the ones who determine what the minimum wage is. The minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum amount of money that one can live off of. In that line of think, if these people are the ones who say that this is enough to live off of, then they should live off of it. I'd also like to point out that for the purposes of this debate, we are not talking about government employees that are hired. We are only referring to elected and appointed officials. I will wait to see what points the CON brings up against this before actually building more of a case. Good luck to whomever decides to accept this challenge.
Does religion poison everything? (Christopher Hitchens argument)

I am relatively new to debating on here, and I didn't realise the no. of rounds could be changed, but if you wish, we could do repeat with more rounds after. The assertion that religion poisons everything refers to that fact that things such as charity, or kindness, have been poisoned by religion, as we do not do them out of a sense on humanity, or a sense of how other humans are our brothers and sisters, but because we are ordered to, with the threat of eternal suffering in hell / Jahannam (Islamic hell) / whatever punishment you get in other religions. The good things we associate with religion like morality, we do because God/other deity tells us to, and not out of goodwill. Therefore these things, when done in the name of religion, are poisoned, as they become petty, as doing them out of empathy is doing it for the wrong reason.