BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump's proposed border wall is more beneficial than not.

Debates like these are the reason I came back to this site. I'm happy I found someone who knows what they're talking about when it comes to subjects such as this, too many times I can't have a debate let alone conversation without someone throwing baseless accusations and insults around instead of explaining their point of view, so thank you in advance, Nd2400, for debating me on this topic. I believe a border wall between Freedom Land and Mexifries is benefical overall. Nd2400 believes it not beneficial, to say the least. You can elaborate more on your stance in round one if you like. Anyway, round one is acceptance. Whatever happens after is whatever.
The Less Laws There Are, the Better

My first paragraph was not "ultimately rhetoric." You seem to be engaging in wishful thinking. I actually gave an entire argument in that first paragraph. Freedom was introduced to support my position in my opening argument, but it is not the only reason that supports my position. From a logistical standpoint, having fewer laws makes the criminal justice system easier and less expensive to operate. Having fewer laws makes it easier to the people to know what is legal and what is not. Thus, the people may have more respect for the law and may be more inclined to abide by it. This debate does not simplistically boil down to safety vs. freedom. You are introducing a false dilemma. It's possible to have few laws, be free, and be safe.
The Less Laws There Are, the Better

My opponents has stated that less laws are always better than more laws. His first paragraph was ultimately rhetoric so lets dive into the only argument presented by my opponent and ultimately what this debate will come down to is safety v. freedom. I believe we should always value safety above freedom. Yes, freedom is important. But without safety no one will be free. Without security, everyone would be dead. For example, when there were fewer laws for food safety, we received the peanut butter salmonella case. Stewart Parnell did not have any inspection within his peanut butter plant which resulted in the death of 9 innocent people. With this came about the food safety modernization act tightening regulation. I await the Pro!
The Less Laws There Are, the Better

There should be as few laws as possible. This position is supported by freedom. People should have as much freedom as possible. In order for people to have as much freedom as possible, there must be as few laws as possible. Thus, by Modus Ponens of Should using the preceding two sentences, there should be as few laws as possible. One argument that supports more laws than necessary is safety. Safety is good, but freedom is even better. For freedom, we pay nothing, but for safety, we pay something. Since it's always better to pay nothing than something, freedom is better than safety.
The Less Laws There Are, the Better

So my opponent in his last speech agreed that security of people is ultimately important. Since he agrees with this let's look at the fishing license. This deals with animal safety. Wildlife is important, and fishing licenses protect animal's rights and allow fishing for everyone instead of all the fish being caught at one time without reproduction. Having health care being required is something that is currently being debated in Congress. This is inherently illogical because it is not set in stone as fishing licenses are. The requirement of healthcare is to keep the American people safe. I am not aware of any laws hat require my opponent to have sex or from wearing an AE shirt. Copyright laws protect businesses and foster capitalism.
The Less Laws There Are, the Better

I am aware there is a relationship between freedom and safety, but this debate is not entirely about that relationship. I agree safety is good, but too much safety is not good. I do not want to be murdered or slashed with a knife. I am fine with laws prohibiting those activities. Having laws requiring licenses to fish and everybody to have health care may be taking the law too far. I shouldn't have to get a license or approval for every little thing I do. I shouldn't have to engage in time and effort consuming paperwork so that I can give my money to somebody else for health care I do not even want. I shouldn't have to worry about taking a picture with an American Eagle shirt on. I shouldn't have to worry about having sex or copyright.
The Less Laws There Are, the Better

My opponent has failed to recognize that his first paragraph was simply rhetoric. My opponent just talked about how freedom is a good thing but essentially gave no reason to prefer. Lets move into the meat of his arguments though. My opponent has dropped his entire standpoint on freedom being valued over safety and has decided to move onto different argumentation. He did this because it is impossible to sidestep facts. Next, he talked a little about cheaper court systems, but I would rather put a little more money into a court system and be safe. My opponent has put a price tag on security which is a flawed mindset. His final argument provided an illogical link. Just because we have fewer laws does not = more respect for laws.
should smoking be banned in public places

One of the only studies done on second hand smoking whilst outdoors was done at Stanford University. This is one of the top universities in the world. (1). Although they concluded that being two feet away, downwind of a smoker, exposes you to chemicals: they said that being six feet away exposes you to virtually no chemicals. Quote "no real risk'". So when most people do stand six feet away from each other, or at least are capable of getting six feet away, its not a serious issue. I mean, one serious enough to have basic freedoms taken away. I not saying free it everywhere, I mean not public places just for being public places. Yes, certain ones-bus shelters, playgrounds, places with children, densely packed small spaces, hospitals etc. but not parks and streets, town centres and the whole rail station and all that. I know it's not nice if a smoker is close by, but how often are you trapped next to one with your kid inhaling all the smoke and unable to breath? This is health and safety gone to far. To the point where the basic right to not be hassled for doing such a none provocative thing, such as smoking a leaf, is lost in the name of health and safety. And yet they don't give a dam about health when it comes to coke, McDonald's, bad diets and alcohol. Smoking is a bad habit, and if you happen to be stuck, closer than six foot (for anyone who doesn't know-the length of an average guy) away from someone who is smoking, and your directly downwind, and you can't move, its microscopically bad for you. Probably not half as bad as the glass of coke you may or may not have had however. So I know it's not ideal, but give smokers a break. To ban them from smoking in wide open park, not near the playground, should be a breach on human rights. It's serious. Banning smoking from establishments and public houses is one thing. Banning it from all public places aka. Everywhere . Is like saying "this whole land belongs to the gov't and you are banned from doing thing we disapprove of, even if they don't directly effect anyone else. It would be like trying to smoke in school, in the whole country! It's absolutely wrong. People need to be great like adults, even if they are not, for treating them like children will only bring out their inner child anyway. Personally I wouldn't smoke a cigarette when a person was close to me, I would move away. But that's me, polite people such as myself shouldn't be punished because of a few rude people that would otherwise find other ways to be rude. Thank you
goku vs superman goku wins

Here's the thing. If Superman goes to Goku's universe, his power level won't stay static. In the same way that Goku's power would lessen if he went to a universe with a lower "power level", Superman would become stronger upon going to Goku's universe, and I believe he would be stronger than Goku based on reasoning presented in my first argument. Anyway, cheers. Nice debating with you.
goku vs superman goku wins

Yes, Goku is very powerful, almost certainly more powerful than superman. What you have to consider, however, is where these characters live. Superman's world largely obeys the laws of physics, aside from a few exceptions (such as Superman's own powers). While a definite measure of a universe "power level" doesn't exist, Superman's world is far closer to reality. In the DBZ world, a much larger number of people can defy the real world's laws of physics in a much more drastic way. Therefore, the "power level" of the DBZ universe is much greater. All things within a universe must obey the laws of physics of that universe, so if one of the characters were to move to a universe with more restrictive laws of physics, they would be weakened. To determine how a character's power scales when moved to a different universe, one needs to determine power level relative to their own universe. The physics of Goku's universe are much less restrictive, as indicated by the fact that many other characters have powers that can match Goku's universe. Relative to the universe, such a high power level isn't nearly as uncommon as it is in Superman's universe, with the only deviations from conventional physics being the abilities of the members of the league of justice. Superman is much more powerful in his universe than Goku is in the DBZ universe. Thus, were the two of them put into the same universe to fight, Superman would out scale Goku on power and win.
The U.S. should focus more on technological advancements than war

I'm not going to lie my opponent made some very good points in his rebuttal. What my opponent said about how previous wars have pushed along the advancement of technology is very true and interesting but the new fire starter for ideas is entertainment. Take for example Star Wars, this media master piece created many cool futuristic ideas. People got the idea for holograms, force fields, and more from Star Wars (http://www.cracked.com...). War is just a burden I have to admit I'm running out of reasonable points to use. So I will end my argument here.
The U.S. should focus more on technological advancements than war

Thanks, Pro. I will offer one point. War spurs technological advancement. War often creates a need for previously unneeded products. World War I was the first war to extensively utilize aircraft. This yielded the need to create a system of navigating these aircraft to and from airfields. When a need arose, air traffic control was created. Battlefield wounds brought about the invention of portable X-ray machines. Sanitary napkins were created when French nurses realized the usefulness of bandage materials. [1] World War II produced similar results. Advanced aircraft spurred the invention of radio navigation, RADAR, and the jet engine. Rubber scarcity forced companies to improvise, and synthetic rubber was born. Even the disastrous attack on Japan with the atomic bombs helped scientists fully grasp nuclear fission and fusion and implement them in nuclear power plants. [2] All these technological advancements are advantageous to society today, and we would not have them if war had not spurred their invention. Now for rebuttals of my opponent's arguments. First, America isn't far behind in scientific research. We are one of the leaders in global cancer research, for example, and recently the Director of the US National Cancer Institute was named chair of an international coalition working against cancer. [3] Pro's point about Spiderman technology isn't a strong one. If there are pressing issues facing the world such as cancer and other diseases, or environmental collapse, there's no reason scientists should be wasting their time playing superhero. Now for the last remark about the environment, if technological advancements can help the environment, then why are scientists playing around and shooting webs from their hands instead? [1] http://mentalfloss.com... [2] http://www.warhistoryonline.com... [3] http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org...
The U.S. should focus more on technological advancements than war

I believe that technology could be so much farther along if we were to focus more on technological advancements instead of war. Think of all the money that goes towards guns bullets medical devices and other things for the army that could be used for trying to find out the answers to some of the hardest questions Scientists face today. I remember back when there were many commercials about trying to get people into the scientific field or community now all I really see is sending your support for wounded soldiers they got their arms blown off. I would much rather see commercials trying to convince people to be common engineer or a chemist or physicist then trying to go to the military. Also focusing more on scientific and technological advances instead of war would be better for the United States as a whole. The United States is already so far behind compared to other countries when it comes to science if we focus more on trying to get better technology and other scientific thingscould put the United States at a more comfortable place. Also compare scientific advancements to war the great thing about science is that you can just think of some of the most random crazy things and to make a real reality, for example I heard a couple months ago that scientistswe're trying to make a Web shooter like from the Spiderman comic book and movie series. Yes I know this sounds very useless in crazy but that's the great thing about signs you can just take seemingly useless things and make them and it turns out that they're actually really useful. Now let's look at war yes war does have its advantages you end up helping people you can make a new alliances with the different countries and places but it also does have very large disadvantages. You can put countries in dept turn country is against each other and make new enemies, it can destroy the land from constant bombings and if used nukes, and it will cause the death of many people. Another great thing that technological advancements can have is he can really help the environment with eliminating greenhouse gases in other hazardous materials from the environment.
Evolution is BS.

Pro's claim that there is a ballsack pokemon is unsupported. He said "Raticate the Ballsack pokemon", but never explains why Raticate is a ballsack pokemon.It should be understood that even if Raticate is a ballsack pokemon, this doesn't mean that Evolution = ballsack. Evolution isn't the final product (if the final product is ballsack, Evolution is ballsack.) Evolution is merely the means to get there. By Pro's logic, a highway that takes you to St. Louis would also be St. Louis. Even if it were true, this would be assuming that because one example of evolution is a ballsack, all the 500+ evolutions are also ballsacks. This doesn't flow.
Evolution is BS.

In accordance with my opponents definition of "bs", bs equalling "ballsack" and explaining in his words that evolution is based on the Pokemon version of evolution, the equation looks like this: BS(ballsack) = evolution I have demonstrated with an example that there is a "ballsack" pokemon. This pokemon would have "evolved" based on Pokemon evolution. Thus, there is an actual pure demonstration in this case. Pokemon Pokemon evolution = "ballsack" Pokemon. My actual stance was this originally. I was pro for the statement, "evolution is bs." This is a symonym type statement to the equation: evolution = bs Synopsis: Evolution is bs is equivalent to evolution = bs which is equivalent to pokemon evolution = ballsack pokemon.
Evolution is BS.

I'd like to start my round by defining the terms "BS" and "Evolution", as Pro has not yet defined them. BS, nounAn acronym for Ball Sack. Evolution, nounThe process Pokemon endure after Level 15. As Pro never stated rules for acceptance, I'll shall use this round to start my case. Premise I: What is Evolution. The term evolution refers to a process by which Pokemon grow from their youngest stages to their oldest. This process usually occurs at Level 15 in most Pokemon (1). This process can be sped up using special Stones, called Evolutionary Stones, one for each class of Pokemon (2). [1] . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...[2] . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...Premise II: What is a Ball Sack. A ball sack is a flappy sack of skin under a man's penis. This sack holds the single most sensitive object in the known universe. .. the man's future hopes and dreams. .. And if he lets them out, he may never see them again. .. This is why safe sex is important. Argument I: Evolution is not BS. Evolution is a process Pokemon endure. BS is a male sexually-related organ. The two are not the same. Argument II: No Answer to Anything. Pro claims Evolution isn't the answer to anything. Q - "How did your Charmander become a Charmeleon? "A - "Evolution. "Case closed. Conclusion: The two are not the same, and Evolution is in fact the answer to something.
Human genetic engineering is a good thing

I am not attacking you? If you actually get this far down the page then you know I have used valid arguments to show my opponent support animal cruelty and elitism. Yes if you support institutions that perform cruelty upon animals then you support animal cruelty? You can't look at the big picture you have to look inside at the details. " If you closely examine them, all of Con's arguments fall apart. Con is arguing AGAINST scientific progress for empty and pointless reasons." Poverty gaps, animal cruelty, and elite advantages (Not just with better stuff) are empty right? Just POINTLESS! You know what? Screw all those animals in the labs. I am just going to sit around smoke cigars, hope for a promotion, and don't do anything to help another creature in my life. Humans aren't the only things that inhabit the earth you know that right? With increased intelligence comes more things needing to be built. You could say "We could learn to conserve more" yeah right. We will keep building, and testing on animals as long as there are people such as yourself around. 2. Then how can you even debate on this topic or make a reference to that in a debate. You are just bull shitting apparently. 3. Yes like all those funds that help all the people with cancer. If those "funds" were exist there wouldn't be people at home with stage four cancer when they could at least receive treatment. 4. So you are willing to go against nature (or god if you believe in a higher power) to be able to become more empathetic? Is that hard to love? Are you that big of a savage that you can't control yourself or can't learn things for yourself? 5. Yes, all animals that were killed were used fully. Of course if they killed a rat they didn't dance around it but, they would use it all. In summary pro has the more civil debate here. I understand that we all want to be perfect, but why not take the cards we were dealt, and succeed. Cheaters never prosper.
Human genetic engineering is a good thing

In this final round I want to restate several things. 1. My opponent continues to attack me, claiming I am an "elitist" and that I support cruelty to animals. Neither are true. I am not an elitist because I do not support elitism. Rather, it is true elitists will benefit short term from (ALL) technological advances, this is no argument against them. In the long term they will be available to us all. Also, animal experiments go on and will go on regardless. Should people supporting drug research be labeled as supporting animal cruelty? Absurd. 2. I do not know how or when or in what form HGE will take. I am not a futurist. All I am arguing is that it will invariably be a good thing, in the long run. 3. It is absurd to claim that only rich people will receive genetic therapy. There will no doubt be funds for people with diseases to get it, etc. Also, I'm sure people would be more than willing to improve their entire genome if it involves taking out a loan or something. It would be an investment. 4. Yes, Our genes determine so many things including how we interact with other people. Aggression, intelligence, empathy, rational thinking, etc. Even non genetic factors would quickly be changed once genes are altered. 5. So the Native Americans danced around and worshiped the Bison. This doesn't mean they didn't kill it. And the Bison holds a special distinction in Native American culture, especially certain areas. They didn't treat all animals like that either. In summary, Genetic therapy would be a great thing for human kind. All of the bad things we humans have in us, aggression, stupidity, disease, illness, lack of empathy, etc. all have strong genetic components. Sure, Nurture has a lot to do with it but if we take care of the nature part then we are half way there. Moreover, If you closely examine them, all of Con's arguments fall apart. Con is arguing AGAINST scientific progress for empty and pointless reasons.
Human genetic engineering is a good thing

First to defer my opponents claim I will use a quotes from the last round first. ". I do NOT support animal cruelty " "I personally do not believe that animal testing should be done unless totally necessary" Then why did you say this in round two? " Would I sacrifice some animals for humanity getting smarter and better off in the long run? Sure." Am I missing something. You would kill animals to look better? Speciest I have searched the whole HGE databases and none of these places say that HGE would be single injection? Does altering your genotype into a new phenotype sound like an easy thing? That you could get at your local Walgreen's, and walk out with a batman sticker? No I think that things always start in the upper class, and work there way down like you have said numerous times. But, with HGE like I said it would create a bigger poverty gap. You said it would take a few decades to get to the middle class, well a generation is twenty five years. So three generations could pass before they had access to it while there richer peers look socially better, were smarter, so they could have a huggeeee advantage over the other classes. The rich would create bigger Corporatocracy's thus creating more $20 an hour jobs for all the non-hge now grown up humans to have. Do you think HGE would stop wars? Do you think that changing my phenotype will stop me and everyone from being greedy? Are you serious? That if some fat guy gets a new phenotype he will say "screw McDonalds, lets eat SALAD!" I have taken an Native American culture class in college and we spent four weeks, yes... Four weeks talking about animals and spiritual dances, ceremony's the would do for ONE bison? When was the last time you danced around and blessed, and ate every single piece of a whole animal? Nothing was wasting with them. Saying native Americans didn't treat animals well? They treated them better because they cherished, and loved them like brothers.