BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In The BBC Science Fiction Program Doctor Who, The Fourth Doctor Is Cooler Than The Tenth Doctor

I apologize for missing the previous round. My laptop has been down, and I do not intend for it to happen again. On with the debate! The fact that the 10th Doctor traveled with hot women has nothing to do with if he is cooler than Four or not. Even if it did, Tom Baker's Doctor traveled with Leela (portrayed by Louise Jamison), and Romana (portrayed first by Mary Tamm), who are often described as "hot" as well. In fact, all versions of the Doctor traveled with pretty women, so this has nothing to do with whether Ten is cooler than Four. "[Ten] is the only doctor to act in a light-hearted, talkative, easy-going, witty and cheeky manner..." Clearly you've never even seen a Tom Baker episode, because this sentence fits him perfectly. It reminds my of this scene to the right ( http://www.youtube.com... One of my favorites in all of Doctor Who)! Saying that he is the only Doctor to have this personality is a downright lie. The Fourth Doctor had the scarf! Almost as cool as Eleven's bow-tie in the eyes of many, even Matt smith, the 11th doctor himself [1]! You talk about the Tenth Doctor and his fight against the Daleks as if he's the only incarnation that has defeated him. All of him have! This has nothing to do with him being cool. My opponent goes against proper conduct in his last sentence in round three. Even so, as much as some people think it is, Doctor Who is not about sex. The character was never meant to be a "sex symbol". He was meant to be a giddy, kind old man who traveled through time offering jelly babies to his enemies. 1. http://www.tor.com...
In The BBC Science Fiction Program Doctor Who, The Fourth Doctor Is Cooler Than The Tenth Doctor

The doctor knew the immortal Captain Jack Harkness (immortal thanks to the amazing Rose in her super sacrifice to the tardis mode) he took down the entire dalek population one episode, pitting them against cybermen in another... This guy is just god of all doctors, he is the sex symbol, he is the most social of them all he knows just to get in the pu$$Y and do that his body was made to do.
In The BBC Science Fiction Program Doctor Who, The Fourth Doctor Is Cooler Than The Tenth Doctor

I will use both these sources (http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org...as reference for any and all claims I make and chellenge my opponent to deny any.Sarah Jane Smith is not unique to fourth doctor, tenth had her too.In fact he had all the following companions:Rose TylerMickey SmithDonna NobleMartha JonesJack HarknessAstrid PethSarah Jane SmithJackson LakeChristina de SouzaAdelaide BrookeWilfred MottHe sifted through different hot women, all of whom fell in love with him one way or another.He is the only doctor to act in a light-hearted, talkative, easy-going, witty and cheeky manner, but repeatedly demonstrate a vengeful and unforgiving streak as well.He wears his own dark brown hair in various ways throughout the series: unstyled in "The Christmas Invasion", a 1950s-style quiff in "The Idiot's Lantern", and flattened forwards in "The Runaway Bride". He also has dark brown eyes. He is perceived by most, including companions and other characters as "slim and a little bit foxy".Your fourth doctor had a lame unkempt afro.Another part of the tenth Doctor's costume is a pair of dark tortoise-shell rectangular frame glasses; since "The Christmas Invasion", he wears them in numerous episodes. As noted above, the Tenth Doctor credits the Fifth Doctor with inspiring his footwear and glasses. The Tenth Doctor's costume became so popular that it has spawned numerous recreations (including a BBC-licensed replica of the Tenth Doctor's overcoat by AbbyShot Clothiers and a white/red version worn by Tennant when he co-hosted Comic Relief), and has been cited by costume designer Louise Page as the costume she is most proud of from her time on Doctor Who.
In The BBC Science Fiction Program Doctor Who, The Fourth Doctor Is Cooler Than The Tenth Doctor

Tom Baker protrayed the Doctor for seven years! Longer than any other Doctor so far. People called his era the golden age of Doctor Who [1]. He's got the scarf! He's got the jelly babies! He's got K-9! He's got the one and only Sarah Jane Smith! Some of the best of Doctor Who came from his series. Tennant does have swag! He is pretty epic, but not as epic as Baker (Tom Baker, not the rainbow umbrella dude). http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
In The BBC Science Fiction Program Doctor Who, The Fourth Doctor Is Cooler Than The Tenth Doctor

This is just something that popped into my head as a debate topic. Personally, I love both. The Doctor is the Doctor, but I have to pick a side. This debate is completely un-serious (if that is a word) and will not involve big words and lengthy responses if you do not want it to. I do require that my opponent is familiar with at least Tom Baker and David Tennant in the roles of the Doctor, so his or her arguments won't be biased or unsupported based on lack of knowledge about either character. Round one will be just for acceptance so everything can stay nice and even round-wise. I peachfully await my opponent's acceptance!
term limits

I will restate my opening argument: In a democratic society, the people have the right to elect whom they want to elect. Term limits limit that right. Therefore, in a democratic society term limits are unjust. My opponent kept arguing that the incubinent keeps winning, so what? If the person is good and the people want him, why can't the people elect the incubinent more than 2x. | CONCLUSION |My opponent has not answered the question that I raised in round 1. If people want to have the same president more than 2 times, why should they be denied the president of their choice? Thank you.
term limits

You say that term limits the right to elect who thy want, it kinda does that, but it does other things too. It creates career politicians who are actually quite annoying. Once they get into the cycle of the election and win their gonna be there for a long time. This is called Oligarchy. Oligarchy's last for long times, but are terrible ways to do things. It limits freedoms and makes larger government. This doesn't always work as planned. You will argue that with elections we will get some of them out. That's the key word, some. More like a few, statistic show that the incumbent wins more the newcomers so having limits helps let new ideas arise and make real change. So having te3rm limits in that perspective helps us move forward. Yes a republic is a type of democracy, but highly modified. The majority of the time is majority rules, but we have a system that can sometimes let the minority win. It also lets us have a constitution. In democracy is unstable because there usually isn't a constitution in place, aka no rights. Also our constitution has an amendment saying we need term limits fr the reasons i have stated, they want the people to have power, and wanted to minimize the government's influence on day to day lives. Here are the differences between the 2: http://www.garymcleod.org... This site says what i have said, but in more detail. O.K. I see you think that the 3 body's of government will keep the dictatorship from happening. The leader won't necessarily become a dictator, but he may give himself a lot more power then the other branches over time. WE are seeing this happening today through regulation and the executive branch today is controlling a few large businesses. And once again, FDR could have served for as long as he wanted, other then the fact he had polio. which killed him. And he passed many laws making the executive branch more power full (not necessarily more power full then congress). So I don't fear dictatorship as much as a powerful executive branch abusing its powers. And you still say that we can elect another member if we don't like him, I will repeat once more, statistics prove that is really hard if he is already in office! Here is a good example of my sentence above. Bill Richardson was the Governor of NM, my Governor, his approval rating was low, but still won his second term. So even if we hate him, we can only hope we can de-elect him.
term limits

Thank you for your arguments. I want to welcome you once again to debate.org and wish you the best of luck. I have argued the following: In a democracy, the people have the right to elect whom they want to elect. Term limits limit that right. Therefore, term limits are unjust in a democratic society. I have not given any particular nation for which we were arguing about, but for the most part, it appears my opponent wishes to stick with the USA, so I shall (respectfully) do the same.My opponent has a few facts wrong. There are many different types of democracy, and in fact, a constitutional republic is one of those different types. Although it is not a pure democracy (there has never been a pure democracy) it is, in fact a type of democracy [1]. In the words of my opponent, "I do agree we need to vote for who we want", and if that person is someone who has served more than twice, then so be it. My opponent argues that there is a fear of a dictatorship, however, I believe this is a scare tactic. The constitution and the balances of power (Judicial, Executive, and Legislative) [2] balance the power to prevent this type of dictatorship from happening. The good thing about a democracy, is that if we do elect someone we do not like, we have the power to remove the person from office. Thanks. ____________[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://bensguide.gpo.gov...;
term limits

Well you have some facts wrong, America my friend isn't a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. there's a difference. Democracy is simply majority rule, America isn't always like that. George Bush with less then 50% of the vote. Abraham Lincoln won with only 40%. Here is proof that we aren't here's a video clip about the types of government: http://www.youtube.com... Now that is settled I can continue. I do agree we need to vote for who we want, but term limits have a lot more good reasons, I showed many of them, you have only 2. The person who has the most money doesn't always win. If you look at history the person in power at the time will usually win. Also it will give a lot of power to the people who have been preside for 40 years. That is like dictatorship on a lesser scale. I don't think that being a career politician is good. Go in there do your part and leave, don't tell me what to do Washington. With history on the table, now this means anyone ca serve from anywhere from 2 or 4 years to their life. So we need new ideas, if we don't our government will stay stagnant and have old policy with no new reform. http://news.wustl.edu... here's proof that the longer you serve, the more chance you have to win. So if you served for a long time, I believe this is a type of oligarchy.
term limits

Thank you, 16adams, for challenging me to this debate. I hope this will be excciting and engaging for both of us. I generally debate religious philosophy, but seeing your debates I thought you would be a good opponent. ==Opening Arguments== In a democracy, the people have a right to elect whom they want to elect. Term limits limit that right. Therefore, term limits are non-democratic and should be done away with. Premise 1 states that in a democracy, the citizens of that nation have that right to elect whom they want. This should be an unproblematic premise for both myself and my opponent. Democracy is defined as a government by the people, for the people, and of the people. Hence, they should have the right to elect whom they want to elect. [1] Premise 2 states that term limits limit that right. If we are truly a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people", then the people decides who they want. Lets take, for example, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt was loved by the people and was a successful war time president [2]. Therefore, the people were justified by giving him 4 terms instead of 2. My question to my opponent is this: If people want to have the same president more than 2 times, why should they be denied the president of their choice? I say, let it be. Therefore, term limits limit democracy and should be done away with. ==Rebuttals==My opponent claims that term limits make elections "fairer." I disagree. It is generally not the person that is most known, but the person who raises the most money for campaigns [3]. Thanks. References[1] http://www.democracyweb.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3] http://communities.washingtontimes.com...;
term limits

In an election usually the the person already in office will win again because people have more knowledge of that person. Also if the person already sitting in power wins, it may become a totalitarian regime once they decide to give them self's more power systematically. If you have term limits you'll probably be more likely to get more ideas much faster. Also it may break ties to special interest groups. So if you have the biggest company's behind you you'll never lose. Just bribe the people to keep their mouths shut and support you. The ways dictatorships start is either being rich, or very well armed people behind you, and being rich helps get those arms behind you. So term limits will help reduce the size of government in good ways. This makes elections more fair also. when its two people who are not well known, the chances are 50% for each, where as the person currently sitting in power has a 90% chance of winning. It also makes taxes lower because if there are people who raise them, you just vote them out (which can be hard as I have said because they have more influence) or wait till their limit ends. It can also reduce power lobby's because if you have 10 senior members ruling everything that's not always good. But with term limits this can only happen for a limited amount of time.
there are no right or wrong answers in ethics

Cheating in college is a great point to make. It seems like it would be ethical because you are doing everything you can to try and be the best student you can be. But, cheating is wrong for most people. But you may think that cheating is bad, but other students may not see a issue with it. That is how people are different. Do you think there are ways to show students in college how serious cheating can be? Is it hard to change someones moral standpoint?
there are no right or wrong answers in ethics

Yes so are you starting to agree with me, how even though we have different opinions, we need to agree on things as a whole. or we will have to many differences and conflicts will be occurring left and right. But your new question is how are there right or wrong answers in ethics for the life of a college student? That is a great question because we are currently college students and in college kids have to make many hard and demanding choices, whether it be with school work, social life or family. For example, making ethical choices with doing college work. Like cheating in school, whether to be honest and do your work yourself or cheat and try to get the better grade but in academic dishonesty. This is not a personal preference, there is wrong to cheat and when you cheat you don't also hurt yourself but you hurt other students who are being honest doing there work. Cheating is a terrible attribute, and its against every school policy that's why its unethical, but with social life and family that's a personal preference so there is no wrong or right answer. Does that answer your question.
there are no right or wrong answers in ethics

I do believe that our legal systems are ethical and provide for the greater good of the people. Yes, your right about how people have different views on ethics, and sometimes fights and arguments break out over our differences, But as a society as a whole we have to agree on laws and compromise what is best for our people in the country. You said that not everyone has the same ethical views on things and that our society isn't successful? America is one of the most powerful countries in the world, when it comes to wealth and power.o You are right how people have different viewpoints, but we have to agree as a whole on a set of rules.
there are no right or wrong answers in ethics

I don't agree with your first sentence about us living in a successful society. Not everyone has the same form of ethical views. Their views don't make society successful. I agree with your statement on how things would change if there weren't consequences for crimes. Our society has more improved ethics and morals from other countries because I think we were raised differently than them. Most of their views are based on old traditions or maybe religion. Not everyone agrees with those as a whole. The way our nation lives and our government helps our morals so we don't have to worry about malicious killings frequently. Yes, people kill others but they are brought to justice by our legal system. Our legal system is based off morals that help society function. It may not always be successful but it prevents major problems. Do you think our legal systems are ethical and provide for the greater good of the people?
there are no right or wrong answers in ethics

Ethics is a set of morals, that direct and guide people through life. Without ethics things would be very chaotic in the successful society that we live in today and wouldn't be where it is if there were no right or wrong answers in ethics. That's why I am against the statement, "there are no or right or wrong answers in ethics" ethics is the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles. I think as a group of people we must decide on a set of rules in order to maintain the organized world we live in today. We are a social animal and ethics are the rules we create to maintain a sense of fairness in our dealings with each other. Without those rules our social structures fall apart in disarray. Let me explain in better detail for example, we see crime happen everyday all around the world and these crimes happen even with the set of laws we have today. Everyone knows how badly people get punished when they commit a crime and people still continue to do these violent and unlawful acts when they know there will be major consequences. Now imagine if people knew that they wouldn't get punished for committing crimes. The society that we live in would be corrupt and chaos would be all around us. Countries such as Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan, China, and many places in Africa don't have laws and don't have much of a belief in moral ethics. That's why everyday you hear terrible things happening in these countries because they don't believe in fair ethics. China is another great example, how they favor men over women because they think men are the dominant gender. After women give birth they kill women because they think women are useless and less worthy then men. That is very unfair and I think everyone can agree its unethical, I think everyone in 2014 can agree killing someone cause of there gender is unethical and wrong. Also in the other countries I mentioned, like Nigeria, Syria and Africa, people are killed all the time without any punishments being made to the people who did the murder. That is why there countries are so corrupt because the people in the country doesn't have a strong ethical stand. Also in these countries, they don't have a democracy. Where people are rewarded for there hard work. In China and Africa no matter how hard the civilians work. There money goes to the government and not the people when the people of the country are doing all the hard work. That is wrong and unjustified. People should be rewarded for there hard work, and the government is cruel for taking these people's rights away. In conclusion that's why I believe that people need to all agree there are right and wrong answers in ethics, because if not then the world we live in would be harsh and everyone as whole would be unhappy. People think being smart and good looking are the most important traits, when really having good morals is all you need in life and having a fair ethical judgment will get you farther in life and it will make you and others much more happy. That is why there has to be a right and wrong answer the ethics.
there are no right or wrong answers in ethics

Crystal that's a great point, I think colleges for the most part really stress to kids how wrong cheating really is. That's why kids know not to do it cause they know its unethical and can lead to serious consequences because its not fair to themselves and other students who are being honest and putting the hard work in. Maybe we can make the punishments more severe like expulsion. Maybe if kids knew that the consequences were this serious. It wouldn't even come across there minds.
Essential services should be socialized, and privatized services should be regulated.

I will begin by offering 3 main premises for my argument. 1. Most essential services that all human beings are entitled to as members of society should be socialized. Socialized, meaning owned and operated by the community as a whole, whether that means through the Government, or by general worker consensus. Essential services include healthcare, education, food/housing for the poor, roads, public transit, etc. I am now ready to hear from my opponent. 2. Other services (As in, cell phones, TV, internet, food/housing for the well-off, cars, computers, etc.) should be run in a Capitalist manner. Capitalism, meaning private individuals and businesses own the means of production, and they compete within a marketplace. 3. The Government must regulate the services described in premise #2. Regulate, as in ensure the businesses providing those services do not defraud their workers, do not harm the environment, do not form monopolies, etc.