BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Big Bang is a far superior group than Super Junior

Wow!! Super Junior promotes diversity due to their abundant subgroups!!(sarcasm). Let's be real, both groups promote diversity and just by having members of different races does not determine ones diversity "level" considering the the number of international fans Big Bang has. And yes, I did forfeit round 3. The reason I did so was simply due to the fact that I did not need to propose a third argument since it simply does not change the outcome of the debate. I will now take time to sum up my voting issues for this debate and why I deserve to win this debate. 1. It is quite absurd my opponent defines "popularity" based off of a silly little contest on Allkpop compared to videos on youtube which EVERY fan watches. My opponent stated quote"If Big Bang is so "popular" then wouldn't their loyal fans ALSO vote multiple times for them." I'd like to say the same for him: if Super Junior was so popular, then wouldn't their loyal fans ALSO watch their videos multiple times for them? 2. My opponent's rebuttals to my contentions were quite weak as he completely ignored my contention two. I'll take his ignorance a gesture of forfeiture towards my second argument and now we can all conclude that my opponent AGREES that Super Junior has been recently lacking in quality. 3. I refuted against all my opponent's contentions + rebuttals with evidence far superior to my counterpart's. XX I love you, Baby I'm not a Monster XX XX Vote for Lawrentian, Fantastic Baby XX Disclaimer's note: Super Junior is A GREAT, no AMAZING group that I love so much. However, as stated before, my only burden is that Big Bang is better, which I believe that I have fulfilled. I await my opponent's next argument.
Resolved: Big Bang is a far superior group than Super Junior

Greetings to all spectators, Continuing on from my previous rebuttals, I would also like to state that my opponent's second contention is highly biased and fallacious. In addition, what rights does he have to claim that "the quality of Super Junior has not lived up to society's standards"? Is this a fact? No. This a fallacious assumption based off of one's own bias. Moreover, his third sentence contains false information: "aside from the fact that they (Super Junior) have barely been active for the past few years". For everybody's information, Super Junior's subgroup Super Junior- M just released their SWING album on March 21, 2014. Due to Suju-M being a subgroup of Super Junior, this release counts as an album released by Super Junior. My response to Lawrentian's first rebuttal about "Super Junior has many subgroups" so what?" quote is that their subgroups promote diversity. It appeals to a wider audience, not just focusing on the main youth group of K-pop, as Big Bang does. Finally, I would also ask a question to the audience. Why did Lawrentian forfeit, when he so passionately fought the last few rounds? Has he given up Big Bang's plight? Round 4 is utilized merely for conclusions, and new arguments should not be addressed. Thank you.
Resolved: Big Bang is a far superior group than Super Junior

First, I would like to counter the assumption my opponent just propagated above me. When he stated that the fans of Super Junior were "able to vote numerous times", he inferred that Super Junior only won the Allkpop contest through fans who voted multiple times. Now I ask the audience a question. Our topic is to debate that Big Bang is "superior" to Super Junior. If Big Bang is so "popular" then wouldn't their loyal fans ALSO vote multiple times for them. Therefore, we can conclude that the Super Junior is superior in popularity to Big Bang because this group has instilled a sense of both loyalty and support from their fans. I will continue my rebuttals in the next round. Thank you. http://www.forbes.com...
Resolved: Big Bang is a far superior group than Super Junior

My opponent provided many valid arguments in his first constructive. However, sadly to say, most of them are very inaccurate, contradictory or bias in a given sense. His first argument was that of "Popularity"; countering the first contention of my case. He disagreed with the impartialness and questioned the accuracy of my evidence in which he claimed that youtube was not a valid source since the view aggregate increases every time one visits the video. Then, quite ironically, he provide evidence from the Allkpop "Battle" in which Super Junior DID win. However, I would like for the voters to realize that "voters from the Allkpop tournament" were ALSO able to vote numerous times. I quite find his contradiction amusing and would like for the judge to cross his contention 1 off from the voting ground. In his second argument, he boasted about how Super Junior had many subgroups; however, I don't see how this is significant at all to the progress of the debate. Super Junior has many subgroups...so what? My opponent has clearly forgotten to address this point. Furthermore, my opponent provided many stats on the wealth/income of SM vs YG. He seemed to have been motivated by the idea that because of Super Junior, SM attained more money. However, this i hardly true since Super Junior were very inactive in 2013 and the main contributor to SM's income was Exo, whom released THREE albums in the span of one year. The judge needs to realize that Super Junior were not the main reason SM's income was so high during the 2013 year. Also, SM simply had a larger income due to the fact that they have more groups. End of. Yes, my opponent provide real statistics such as SM and YG's income during the 2013 year. No, it does not affect the course of the debate simply because Super Junior barely had much to do with it. His contradictory and hypothetical statements show that the rest of his arguments are unreliable. Fantastic Baby. Thank you.
can history be rewritten

Thank you, Con.Affirmative CaseA1: History can be rewritten History. History. See? I have rewritten history. I have rewritten “history”, therefore I have affirmed the resolution. A2: History can be rewritten History can be defined as: a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc. [1] In light of this definition, it is reasonable to assume that a “narrative of past events” can be rewritten in the sense of being written in a different way. For example, it is commonly accepted that the Holocaust killed approximately six millions Jews [2]. Comparatively, historian David Irving argues that the Holocaust was largely a fabrication [3]. In order to have these conflicting narratives, history must have been rewritten, or else we would not have these two narratives. Hence, history can be rewritten. Counter-arguments “History shouldn't be rewritten because it will effects nations culture and their values. As an example America changed the information's which is written on their history books an example of history re-written, let's go with The War of 1812 in which is often cited as a US fight to preserve the countries Independence... the war being fought because US ships were being intercepted at sea and US sailors pressed into Royal Navy service and the Brits were interfering with US trade and US trading partnerships. That is how the war is taught in the USA. Now let's look at the reality, verification of facts debunking the 'rewriting' included: Impressionist had virtually died out by 1812.” This entire argument does not fit the resolution. We are not debating whether history *should* be written, rather whether it *can* be written. “The Brits had signed an accord agreeing to cease meddling in US foreign affairs, again before the war began those reasons that are so often offered by the US as a reason for going to war - are not even mentioned as reasons in the 1812 US Declaration Of War against Britain with these new written information's the citizens will not now their loss and week times and they can be stronger for the future times” I do not think my opponent realises that this instance is not all that relevant to the debate, so much so that even if it conceded, I could still win the debate by making arguments that show history can be rewritten. References [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] Hare, Ivan; Weinstein, James (2010). Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford University Press. p. 553.
can history be rewritten

History shouldn't be rewritten because it will effects nations culture and their values. As an example America changed the information's which is written on their history books an example of history re-written, let's go with The War of 1812 in which is often cited as a US fight to preserve the countries Independence... the war being fought because US ships were being intercepted at sea and US sailors pressed into Royal Navy service and the Brits were interfering with US trade and US trading partnerships. That is how the war is taught in the USA. Now let's look at the reality, verification of facts debunking the 'rewriting' included: Impressionist had virtually died out by 1812. The Brits had signed an accord agreeing to cease meddling in US foreign affairs, again before the war began those reasons that are so often offered by the US as a reason for going to war - are not even mentioned as reasons in the 1812 US Declaration Of War against Britain with these new written information's the citizens will not now their loss and week times and they can be stronger for the future times
White Southerners are a nation

Well, regardless of whether or not white skin is a curse, white southerners are a nation according to both of our definitions. Your Bible verse does not support your claim that white skin is a curse. And, in case you didn't realize, white skin is not actually white, it is just a lighter version of tan. White is just what we call it. And you have forgotten that it is because that most people lived in the Middle East and North Africa, so that is why everyone was generally the same color. The table of nations shows when Noah divided the world between his sons, in genesis 10. VOTE PRO!!
White Southerners are a nation

I'm glad we took this debate to the bible. Now let me tell you why you're wrong. My opponent talks about Noah and his three skins. He also states that one of them had white skin. Now let me go as far as to say this is EXTREMELY incorrect. Why? White skin in the bible was a curse. White skin was seen as something odd and not natural. Whiteness is a curse. If you don"t believe me, read again the twelfth chapter of the book of Numbers. Miriam is cursed when God turns her skin "white as snow." You might say Miriam was the original "Snow White." In her case, white skin was a curse. I"m aware of a long history of black skin being considered a curse of God, but never white skin. I wonder why? "Whoop, there it is!" right smack in the Holy Bible. Whiteness is a curse. It was a sin for a believer to marry a non believer. Let's quote Daniel 7:9 : "As I looked, "thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. Hair like wool? Who has hair like wool? Not white people. You see? There are many evidence in the bible supporting that white skin was a curse. Moses hand turned white in the bible. And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. Many southerners have a misinterpretation of the bible and misquote it. Also if you're giving me a bible scripture please give me verse and chapter so I may look it up. Onto you Pro!
White Southerners are a nation

Let's look at your definition of nation: "Nation : a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." I will get slightly Biblical for this part. Noah's three sons Japeth, Shem, and Ham were the founders of the post-world nations. After the flood, Noah divided up the world into parts for his children. Japeth got Europe, and his descendants had white skin because they did not use nearly as much melanin compared to the other 2 nations. Shem, or Sem, received Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas, but this land was not inhabited by Native Americans for a while longer, but the Natives were descendants of far east Asians that have similar skin colours, and in the far east, the snow reflected on their skin and eyes, creating the "Asian eye" characteristic and "yellow" skin. Ham was granted Africa, and to survive in Africa, his descendants had to have more melanin or they would die of the intense heat found in Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org... So, this means that all Black people are descended from Ham from Africa, and all European Whites are descended from Japeth, so obviously, we can not be related that closely. Let's bring up the definition again: "Nation : a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." White southerners do not have to posses territory to be a nation, they simply have to inhabit it. And just because White southrons are a nation does not mean that other nations with different cultures, such as Cherokee, Black Southerners, Hispanic immigrants, cannot co-exist with Whites. But, culturally, almost every single individual human is different. But as one species, we do not have a unified culture. This is also true for the United States. There is no such thing as "American culture, because America is so diverse. This is why Americans are not a nation and different cultural groups, such as white southerners and Cherokee, are. http://www.youtube.com...
White Southerners are a nation

"Not every white person in the South came from Northwest Europe." I did not say that ALL White Southerners came from Northwest Europe, if it sounded like that to you, I will explain: The CULTURE of most White Southerners comes from an ethnic group called Ulster-Scots, or the Scotch-Irish. The culture of this ethnic group is what people think of when they think of the Appalachian mountains, because many, if not most Ulster-Scots immigrated to the mountains because for one, it reminded them of their homeland, and two, there was large anti-Irish and anti-Scottish sentiment in the US at this time, the early 1700s. "White Southerners are not any different from the North. You cannot be a separate nation because you wouldn't be any different than any other white person or black person for that manner." Let's start with the latter part of that statement "you wouldn't be any different than any other white person or black person." You don't have to look far to realize that whites are very different from blacks, culturally. Now scientifically, there are still some differences. For instance, most, (not all, most), black people tend to have larger noses than white people. This is not very disputed, so there are differences between us, culturally and scientifically. "White southerners are not any different from the North." Again, cultural differences. (By the way, when I talk about southern culture, I am referring to the Ulster-Scots culture of Appalachia.) Again, no one disputes that the North and the South are not different culturally. "We all speak English." This is not a fact, there are many White German immigrants who only know German, for example. "We all came from Africa." That is an evolutionist opinion. I, as a Christian, believe that we all started in the Middle East, but that is another debate. No one is 100% sure that ALL humans came from Africa. You guys not any different from the rest of us. White Southerners are apart of the United States." Again, different cultures, but I will get historically technical. The South was once the Confederate States of America, and a peace treaty was never signed, so technically, the CSA still exists, but is under occupation.
White Southerners are a nation

Hello. First of all I would like to thank you for taking this debate. I welcome you to this. Let's set the record straight before I proceed. I am not racist, nor am I against white people. I love everyone equally and I live around white people today (Northern). With that being said lets move on. You stated : "A large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history". Don't we all have a common ancestor? Current data suggest that modern humans evolved from archaic humans primarily in East Africa. A 195,000 year old fossil from the Omo 1 site in Ethiopia shows the beginnings of the skull changes that we associate with modern people, including a rounded skull case and possibly a projecting chin. http://anthro.palomar.edu... Therefore you are a nation, however you aren't separate. Didn't white northerners and southerners come from Europe? To US? "The second definition includes the word "race", which white is one. White southerners, or southrons, have a common language: English, a common culture: Southern culture, a common ethnicity: White (or, if you want to get specific, people from Northwest Europe), so therefore a common decent, and a common history, such as the civil war." We all speak English. Not every white person in the South came from Northwest Europe. White Southerners are not any different from the North. You cannot be a separate nation because you wouldn't be any different than any other white person or black person for that manner. We all came from Africa. Another thing to point out is that "race" is not a word. Race does not exist :Dr. J. Craig Venter, president of Celera Genomics, the company that recently mapped the human genome, recently said of race and biology, "It is disturbing to see reputable scientists and physicians . . . categorizing things in terms of race." Dr. Venter"s statements were emphatically backed by Dr. Joseph L. Graves Jr., author of The Emperor"s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at Millennium," in a recent New York Times interview. "Possibly only six genes determine the color of a person"s skin," Graves, a professor of evolutionary biology and African-American Studies at Arizona University, said in the Times interview. Six genes, out of the 30,000 to 40,000 genes that make us human, determine race. Graves further asserted what genome researches have been uncovering over several years as the mapping project has wound down: as far as biology is concerned, race doesn"t exist. http://www.foxnews.com... You guys not any different from the rest of us. White Southerners are apart of the United States.
White Southerners are a nation

I hope that this debate can be polite and respectful. I will argue that white southerners are a nation. I will use the word "nation" in it's both historical and Biblical definition: "A large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history". Nation can also refer to "a people, race, or tribe; those having the same descent, language, and history. " . http://en.wikipedia.org...... The second definition includes the word "race", which white is one. White southerners, or southrons, have a common language: English, a common culture: Southern culture, a common ethnicity: White (or, if you want to get specific, people from Northwest Europe), so therefore a common decent, and a common history, such as the civil war. So White, North-Western European, English-speaking Southerners, are a nation. The League of The South, a Southern Nationalist organization, has information further explaining what the southern nation is. I invite my opponent, or anyone, to check it out. I am aware that this group is considered a hate group by the SPLC, but this debate is not about if I am a racist, it is about if White Southrons constitute a nation. Furthermore, I am not coming from any position of bigotry or hatred towards any group of people, I am simply stating the fact that white southerners are a nation.
Resolved, that castration be legalized in the Philippines

Well, i don't have anything to say because Mr. Francis didn't post anything for me to argue with. To conclude everything, I still strongly believe that castration should be legalized in the Philippines only to serial rapists, incestual rapists, and rapists of minor victims. This is to prevent and reduce rape cases by giving second thought to rapists and future ones. I end with this. May the best debater wins. Paz!
Resolved, that castration be legalized in the Philippines

First and foremost Mr. Francis, as a standard rule in the debate, one shouldn't include religion and philosophy. That's one of your mistake. Secondly, what other alternatives can you propose aside from castration?Do you this is a worthy and more applicable one? To say to you Mr. Francis, castration is the best way to punish serial rapists, incestual rapists, and rapists of minor victims. This kind of punishment can give justice and contentment to the victim. A just punishment indeed!In such a way that the rapist will feel the equal pain his/her victim have felt.
Resolved, that castration be legalized in the Philippines

i disagree with this kind of idea because in the first place we are trying to abolish what God had told Adamand Eve which is to multiply. I know that it is very hard to accept that mostly, women are the victims of this kind of sin but let us also consider the fact that there must be another way on how to resolve this issue. Aside from putting away their manhood we will also put these men in great embarassment which i think i very unfair.
Resolved, that castration be legalized in the Philippines

In this proposition, i would like to set the parameters in which castration be only implemented for serial rapists,incestual rapists, and those who rape minors. To begin with, let me first define what castration is. Castration is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testes or a female loses the functions of the ovaries. These are the following points: 1)Castration can lessen the sex urge of a rapist once he was catrated. 2)It can help in the lessening of the rape cases in the Philippines. 3)The legalization of castration will force the medical personnels to develop a better technique and better facilities in conducting the necessary surgery. 4)It can lessen the pain that the rape victim is feeling. These are some of the positive points on which castration should be legalized in the Philippines. More are coming up.
Death penalty

I didn't mean to torture prisoners, but prison should not be comfortable. Is that not what prison is -- uncomfortable? Prison is a place of punishment in order to correct what criminals have done, and possibly cause some shame in them. Taking another life doesn't do it. People can change and repent of their ways. People deserve forgiveness and a second chance (upon finishing their punishment in jail). You kill a suspect, you deprive them of their chance to change.And it's not for us to say who deserves to die.
Death penalty

People tend to not want to die. Sure, some people won't be deterred, but at the same time, a lot of people fear death, or would just rather it come later than sooner. "Clean and comfortable" prisons are following basic human rights these days. "Darker" prisons that criminals "rot" in are like going back in time. In conclusion, the death penalty is still deterring people, possibly more than the prisons of today do, but either way, the "dark" alternative would, at the very least, cause controversy.
Death penalty

With all due respect, I disagree that the death penalty is always wrong. In some extreme cases, killing a person produces a better outcome than letting them live. I will give more examples further on, but say that a dangerous criminal is known for being particularly vicious to his victims. Would you rather have him suffer for years in jail, safe behind bars (though you run the risk that he could escape anyways), which hardly seems to raise anybody's happiness? Or would you rather him die a quick and painless death, minimizing suffering all around?