BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An online debate is not as fun as a in person rapid fire debate.

1. The rule book says no eye contact because it uses intimidation tactics to win rather than just plain good debating skills, which those who use intimidation tactics seem to be at a loss for. 2. As I've said before if you can't voice your thoughts in either of those limits then your like the english parliament, STUPID. 3. I don't care where you're from, screaming 'HA' at any point in a debate is unprofessional and disruptfull to the debate, and is likely to get you removed from the room. 4. That's a moot point. You can lose in an online debate and a live debate. 5. Again, you can discomfort someone online too. 6. I 'said' ON THE COMMENTS PAGE!!!!!!! 7. He admits to having fun in this debate in his seventh point. Meaning he cantradicts his entire case and agrees with me. 8. What defence! I don't need one because you only attacked it with the word 'what?' Thus a defence is not required. 9. If you mumble you lose the debate because all the judge hears is mmmmmmhgmgmamivpanrivna;kr. 10. Buy a computer that has an eye-friendly screen like the one I'm using now. It doesn't cost extra if you get it from either Mac or HP.
An online debate is not as fun as a in person rapid fire debate.

1 Where do you come from? Not only can you make eye contact (accept in Oklahoma city) but you can read body language on a in person debate. 2 You cant talk fast to get your point in, in person there is a 30 minuet period to talk, online there is a 8000 limit 3 You can scream 'Ha' towards the end of the debate, if you are winning. 4 It isn't fun to loose!! 5 No it isn't fun to get 'discomforted' but it is fun to 'discomfort' 6 No, you said question the crap out of tier profile, you can block someone if you haven't noticed. 7 You pushed me to far on this one http://www.youtube.com... now that is fun 8 You defence has no logic. 9 You wont if you mumble! You can't go blurry eyed in a in person debate unless you have written your argument.
An online debate is not as fun as a in person rapid fire debate.

If you want to get literal ok! 1. Where I come from you are not allowed to make eye contact with your opponent during a debate. 2. If you can't say what you need to say in less than five rounds then you got problems not debate.org 3. I wouldn't advise screaming 'ha' at your opponents in the middle of a proffesional debate. Nor is it legal to stomp on thier throats. 4. This challenge you bring up is the difficulty that makes online debating fun. 5. Not knowing who you're debating is what makes online debate more fun. It's not exactly fun to get 'discomforted' 6. No they wouldn't, as long as you don't use obsenities or racial slurs, which I'm pretty sure you can't do in a real debate either. 7. The English Parliament is a failed attempt at representational government and is thus stupid. 8. What do you mean 'what?' 9. Your jaw is a joint and therefore can contract arthritis in it. so your point is moot.
An online debate is not as fun as a in person rapid fire debate.

with the way your talking, you seem to be from the Ezra before the Internet. 1 You can't look m in the eye! I have a buoy, and I meant to see the reaction, and scare them. 2 They always have time to react you you cant talk them into a corner, and there are at most 5 rounds, not enough time. 3 not everyone is flexible enough to stick their foot on the computer screen, and if you say "ha" it is not heard 4 the time mid debate is to much, the improvement of your case isn't good because if you have the upper hand they will eventually. 5 now you can see the discomfort, and take advantage, like a smoking hot chick (your age) debates you, you may be a wee bit discomforted, if your shy. but online you don't know, you could be debating a 43 year old fat guy in Canada 6 no you can't you can't, if you question the crap out of them, if you did they could block/delete the questions 7 need I bring up the the English parliament again? 8. what? a in person rapid fire debate is much better because you may someday get arthritis in your hands and verbal debates wont wear out your limbs.
Resolved: The United States should incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15/hr

Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 8. The BOP is shared 9. Both debaters must follow this format: R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments (No rebuttals) R3: Rebuttals and arguments R4: Conclusions (No new arguments or rebuttals in this round) 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the breach may merit an entire forfeit of the debate Definition of minimum wage: Minimum wage definition (From Merriam Webster: "An amount of money that is the least amount of money per hour that workers must be paid according to the law" Source: (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Thank you and good luck.
Water Privatization

Well, since my opponent never gave me any original arguments to rebut, all I can do is offer my own negative case... Water privatization would be more likely to lead to cutting corners when it comes to water quality. Private corporations main focus is profit. Cutting costs is one way to maximize profit. Therefore privatization is more likely to lead to quality being compromised in order to maximize profit. With this in mind, water privatization should be avoided, as it could lead to the population getting sick due to contamination.
Water Privatization

Actually, the point of this website is for me to debate you, not the author of some blog post. If she wanted to debate the issue, she should have joined the website. This is debate.org, not copy and paste.org. As for the authorship of the article, Chrystal is the ONLY one credited with it, so it is in NO WAY your own creation. Since, you have not yet offered an original argument, I have yet to have anything to rebut. I eagerly await you finally offering an actual argument in the next round.
Water Privatization

Water Privatization can help to improve the overall water supply.R32;The most dangerous thing that people consume every day is water. Billions of people every year drink water that is contaminated and puts their health at risk. Through water privatization, better water would be achieved for many communities because profitability would be in clean water and not dirty water. It would make systems more efficient.R32;Profitability dictates that a system be as efficient as possible so that it can be as profitable as possible. In the world of water distribution, this would mean that more people would receive their water in a more efficient manner and that would limit the ability of the water to be contaminated within the system. It could reduce mortality rates. R32;Most nations are committed to increasing their population"s access applies and this naturally reduces child mortality rates. By releasing the water supply to a profitable business venture, people have more of a guarantee that their water will be clean or have a monetary source of damages if they are given dirty water. It saves municipalities time and money. R32;The city of Chicago has privatized more than 40 city services in the past decade and this has generated more than $3 billion in upfront payments from corporations to be able to lease any assets. Although small communities are going to see this kind of cash upfront, it shows the possibility of how profitable up water privatization venture could be. It reduces public sector risks. R32;By transferring the responsibilities of water distribution to the private sector, the public sector reduces their amount of Worker"s Compensation risk that must be assumed and this benefits the taxpayer on the back end of their fees. It allows for specialized services to be provided through specialized utilities. R32;Instead of placing state workers into a job that they may not be fully knowledgeable about, a for-profit business would be able to bring in specialized employees who can provide a higher level of care to the water systems that are already in place. Starting from the water source, and ending at the user"s tap, a better overall product comes about thanks to the added expertise that is present throughout the entire chain of custody. With the reasons stated above I have made my point on why water privatization is a good thing.
The decennial census, as employed, is unconstitutional.

April 1, 2010 marks the 23rd decennial census conducted by the United States government. As required by the Constitution, the first census in 1790 asked essentially two (1) questions: name of head of household and the number of persons living in the household. In the subsequent 220 years the census survey has ballooned to an excess of fifty (2) questions. The addition of nonessential questions poses a real threat to the security of all Americans. As such, all unwarranted questions should be refused. 1 - http://www.census.gov... 2 - http://www.census.gov...
The decennial census, as employed, is unconstitutional.

As of yet, Pro has not presented an argument on the unconstitutionality of the 2010 census. He merely says additional questions are being asked; he does not say how this violates the US Constitution. The resolution is on the constitutionality of the 2010 census; I am not concerned with who answers which questions. I will provide the relevant data concerning the census: Article 1 section 2 clause 3 of the US Constitution allows for the census. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Now, Pro asserts the first census asked "essentially" two question. I have essentially counted five. . http://www2.census.gov... I do not find any part of the US Constitution listing the number of questions allowed. On the contrary, the above mentioned Article allows wide discretion on such matters. The clause specifically states, "[I]n such Manner as they shall by Law direct. (Article 1 section 2 clause 3. ) Absent a case from Pro, I have little to contend with at this point. I will await Pro's case.
Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player of all time

Thank you for your edginess on wanting to finish this debate topic. I will go a little light in this round, so my third round could be the Knock out round. To finish you off!!! Okay you still think Barry Bonds is greater than Babe Ruth, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron. Again you are wrong on this. I will again compare them to Barry Bonds So called Records. I will question why these records matter when Barry Bonds in fact was using? These records you are talking about for Bonds is very misleading because the fact that he did use Anabolic Steroids. Babe Ruth Not only he was a great hitter. But he was a great pitcher. You mention Babe Ruth only had two face few pitchers back in his days. That is in fact true. But you didn't consider the quality of talent he had to face. Sure he face them a lot more times than what Bonds had to face in his days. But Babe Ruth didn't just played against average players or some John Doe. He had the play against the best of the best. Babe Ruth had to played with the likes of Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Honus Wagner. All of them in Baseball"s first Hall of Fame. Bonds had to face guys like Neifi Perez, Juan Castro, Kevin Jarvis, Jose Lima. All of them consider very bad ball players. Sure Bonds face more ball players, but the talent was not the same like back then. Oh and Another thing to consider how many more Home Runs would Ruth had if he was using like Bonds? Willie Mays was inducted to the Hall of Fame in 1979. With two other Hack Wilson, and Warren Giles." Hank Aaron was inducted to the Hall of Fame in 1982. Same with Frank Robinson. You know why i mention the Hall of Fame? It because Barry Bonds isn't in the Hall of Fame. So i will ask you this. How can a player be considered the Greatest player Ever, if he not in the Hall of Fame? I told you i would keep this round short... But keep in mind the next round will not be for the fate of heart. Hope you don't have a bad heart...lol because it going to be ugly.....
Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player of all time

Alright Nd2400, thanks for taking the time to continue this debate. Your first disagreement with me was for Babe Ruth. Yes Babe Ruth was one of the greatest of all time BUT during his era pitchers would pitch a complete game and start games on multiple days, unlike today where a player might face a pitcher 3 times in one game before the bullpen comes in. As in the case of Bonds, the bullpen always came in after his second at bat maybe even after his first at bat, yet he was able to career bat .298, he batted over .310 eleven times in his career, facing pitchers that all throw over 95 MPH. Ruth would at times face the same pitcher and with only 8 teams in the league would see the same pitcher maybe 40 times in a season, that gives you so much more advantage then seeing a new pitcher almost every game all season. Bonds also holds the HR record with 73, while Ruth hit 60. Willy Mays was an excellent player but he doesn't have the staggering stats like Bonds here below 14" All-Star (1990, 1992"1998, 2000"2004, 2007) 7" NL MVP (1990, 1992, 1993, 2001"2004) 8" Gold Glove Award (1990"1994, 1996"1998) 12" Silver Slugger Award (1990"1994, 1996, 1997, 2000"2004) 3" NL Hank Aaron Award (2001, 2002, 2004) 2" NL batting champion (2002, 2004) 2" NL home run leader (1993, 2001) NL RBI leader (1993) Hank Aaron was a great baseball player but Bonds surpassed him in career homeruns and these other stats below 762 career home runs (755 career for Hank Aaron) 73 home runs in a season (44 in a season for Hank Aaron) 2,558 career walks 688 career intentional walks Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player of all time, his stats alone are staggering and dominating and I would place Babe Ruth second behind Bonds as the greatest of all time, then Hank Aaron 3'rd But for this debate Barry Bonds is the greatest!!! Nd2400 your rebuttal please, better be good because I have the knockout punch in round 3 that will blow your socks off LOL
Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player of all time

Barry Bonds is the greatest home run hitter of all time!! Yes there are people that will say he cheated, that he should have an asterisks beside his name in the home run record. So let me clarify those doubters. First of all steroids will not make you a better hitter, sure you might have more power and be able to drive the ball deeper for more homeruns but you still need to make contact with a ball coming in at 95+ MPH. Bonds is a career .298 hitter. he batted over .300 eleven times in his career. How many ball players can even bat .280 today? He is a 7 time MVP, nobody is even close to that. People will argue that he used steroids so he cheated, but how can you cheat when steroids were not illegal at the time in MLB?? Everybody was using them to perform better, yet out of all players that used them, he was the greatest. He crushed Mark McGwire's record of 70 home runs in a season and he set the record for most walk in a season. Pitchers were trembling at the fact of facing Bonds. Bonds holds the home run record at 73, thirteen more then Babe Ruth and twelve more then Maris. And no asterisks is needed as he belongs in the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown!!! Bonds is the greatest home run hitter and player in baseball. Alright lets do this again, go ahead copy and paste your argument from the last time and I will respond in round #2
Foreign aid

IntroductionI accept. Thanks to Pro for initiating this discussion. I will be oppose the proposition that "foreign aid is a good thing". The burden of proof is on Pro to justify this claim. I look forward to a good debate!DefinitionForeign aid: assistance (as economic aid) provided by one nation to anotherhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...ArgumentsI will begin by presenting four reasons as to why foreign aid is not "a good thing". The three reasons are as follows:1. Despite good intentions, the heavy majority of foreign aid ends up in the hands of the rich, as opposed to going to those who truly are in need of it. Our government takes money from poor people in our own country and hands it over to rich people in poor countries. To give just one example, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stole billions of dollars of aid during his reign. 2. Foreign aid does not create allies; it creates terrorism. The terrorism that threatens the United States and the rest of the Western world is funded in part by our own foreign aid. For example, the United States has given billions of dollars to both Israel and Palestine, essentially funding the endless war between the two.3. Foreign aid creates dependence of developing countries on the United States that would otherwise be absent, ruining the prospects of these countries' advancement. Developing countries will continue to have no motive to fend for themselves so long as our aid continues to prop them up. What will happen to these countries when we are no longer able to give them money?4. The United States does not have any money to give. As of today, our country is nearly 18 trillion dollars in debt. Many US citizens are without jobs, healthcare, and other living essentials. Why should we continue to borrow money from competing countries like China in order to give that same money away to crooks in other countries, fund terrorism, and create worldwide dependence? SummaryThe idea that foreign aid "is a good thing" is simply absurd. Pro has not provided a single argument in attempt to defend his/her assertion and so has failed to carry the burden of proof thus far. In contrast, I have provided four reasons to show why foreign aid is most certainly not "a good thing". I invite Pro to attempt to refute each of the arguments I have given, and in their place construct his/her own arguments in order to defend his/her original claim. Until Pro is able to do this, we have reason to conclude that foreign aid is not "a good thing".Sources http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.brillig.com...
nerf is better than air warriors

Sorry everyone for forfeiting the last round, as I've been caught up in school.Anyways, I'll first refute my opponent's contentions.Nerf guns have more accessories such as ballistic balls and special darts:These features are unneccesary in a battle; they're simply an excuse for Nerf to make more money, which ties in with my first contention which states that Air Warriors are generally cheaper than the brand name Nerf guns. "Nerf ones supersoaker so"I'm not exactly sure what my opponent means by this, but I will assume that he means he thinks Nerf guns are better because they made the Supersoaker line of guns. The main problem with Supersoakers is the fact that you have to be a nearby water supply in order to reload your gun. Because of this, it would be extremely inconvenient to use them compared to Air Warriors guns.Vortex guns shoot farther While that is true, vortex guns are extremely expensive compared to Air Warriors, which ties back into my first contention once more. (1)Nerf has dart tag capabilitiesThis argument is irrelevant, as Air Warriors also have these capabilities. Nerf has ammo clips and drumsOnce again, this is another cheap excuse for Nerf to make an extra buck. Air Warrior users could just put a few extra bullets in their pockets, instead of spending more money on useless items.N force swordsI simply do not understand the point my opponent is trying to make because he refuses to expand on his argument and instead believes a fragment will suffice.I would like to point out that my opponent also has not refuted any of my contentions so far, which shows that I am obviously winning this debate. For all these reasons, vote Con.(1)http://www.amazon.com...;
nerf is better than air warriors

first to all air warriors are all dart and missile blasters, Nerf guns shoot glow in the dark, micro, stream line, and whistling darts. Plus they also shoot ballistic balls, foam missiles, and xlr disks. Nerf ones supersoaker so Vortex guns shoot farther than darts due to the disk's shape Nerf has dart tag capabilities There are Nerf ammo clips, drums and belts. plus N force swards lastly Nerf has attachable accessory's
nerf is better than air warriors

In this debate, I'll be going against the resolution that Nerf guns are better than Air Warriors guns. I'll start off with my contentions. Contention 1: Cost effectiveness Air warrior guns are generally much cheaper than the brand name Nerf guns. Air warriors cost approximately $15 (1), while Nerf guns can cost $50. (2) Contention 2: General characteristics: The average air warrior gun can shoot up to 30-35 feet. Most nerf guns can't even shoot half that distance! Moreover, air warrior guns have a much faster reload system, as you can remove the whole drum cover, while Nerf guns require you to reload each bullet one at a time. Also, some Nerf guns (3) require batteries to operate, while Air Warriors guns come with all the necessities. Nerf guns are also extremely bulky and hard to carry around (4). Air Warriors, on the other hand, are mobile and can be easily carried in one hand. In a dart fight, the person utilizing the Air Warrior gun will definitely win. Because of these reasons, vote con. (1) . http://nerfornothing.blogspot.com... (2) . http://www.amazon.com... (3) . http://www.amazon.com... (4) . http://www.amazon.com...
nerf is better than air warriors

I'm pretty new to debating here on debate. org, so it was nice to have a good debate to start off. My opponent claims that this debate is about Nerf vs Air Warriors, so cost effectiveness doesn't matter. However, in the resolution, it states "nerf is better than air warrriors. " It's impossible to compare two things without comparing how cost effective each one is. It's like saying that you would pay extra money for a gun that has half the amount of bullets of a cheaper gun with more bullets, etc. It just simply doesn't make sense to not compare cost effectiveness when determining which gun is better. I would also like to point out that Nerf is one of the "mainstream" companies that uses their brand name to make more money. Emerging companies like Air Warriors generally have the same product types at a lower rate. I have successfully refuted all my opponent's arguments, but my opponent has neglected to refute my argument about how Air Warrior's characteristics are better than Nerf's.
nerf is better than air warriors

okay first you seem to rely on pricing a lot. this debate is about Nerf (Nerf the company) Vs the air warriors division of buzz bee toys. The debate is not about cost effectiveness its about performance. So price or $$$ has nothing to do with it. So what if things are made to be more expensive, at least they work better So in conclusion my topics about ammo clips and drums Vortex guns and more accessories should still stand And Nerf has night time uses two due to the firefly and tactical light thank you and please go to both the websites http://www.hasbro.com... http://www.buzzbeetoys.com...
Mary Mother of Jesus Scarlet or Saint

My rival uses the arguement of belief. I do respect his idea on this topic of god but in order to prove this that god exists or does not is not possible. How does one argue a thing that can't be sensed by touch sight or hearing. As the burden of proof was not given at the beginning I assume that he undersood that we both must share this as concept of faith does not give proof to something It must be thrown out. The concepts that can not be proven and disproven must also be thrown out my rival has agreed to this. Devine intervention is included in this one can not argue a religion with a god that is "almighty." This debate is for if Mary of Nazareth lied about the origin of Jesus. Not that she wasn't alive and gave birth to Jesus but that the virgin birth was not in existance. This means that in the science of biology which is actual physical and testable proof Mary must have had sex with a man to birth Jesus. All arguements that use any god or divine usage is thrown as with the actual agreement by my rival.