BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Earth Day supporters contradict themselves.

Thank you for responding. I'm going to have to make one point here: Websites are NOT attention-grabbers. If a random website is out there that you don't know the existence of, will it remind you that today is Earth Day? No, it won't. A website is not a public announcement, due to the fact that the message doesn't even reach the public. The only reason anyone would actually go to any of their websites, is if they already wanted to celebrate Earth Day every day. On the radio, while listening to just about anything, a random Earth Day commercial will pop up, and the people hear it. Only around Earth Day. On TV, while watching just about anything, a random Earth Day commercial will pop up, and the people we see it. Only around Earth Day. While driving around town, you pass by a sign that says, "Every day is Earth Day", like this one: . http://green.thefuntimesguide.com... and you read it. Only around Earth Day. A website does not grab attention. It will not randomly pop up while you are visiting other websites. The website will be sitting there, waiting, but the people will go to the sites they actually know the existence of. Around Earth Day, they might have a few announcements on radio, TV, and other sites, to visit the website, but these soon disappear, and the people forget about them. In the middle of winter, do you ever hear a random commercial say, "Here's just a reminder that every day is Earth Day! "? Just within that phrase, they contradict themselves. The only three ways to reach those websites are: 1. Google "Earth Day" 2. Start searching websites with complete randomness, stopping when you reach Earth Day 3. Already know about the website from public advertising 1. People would only Google "Earth Day" on a day that isn't near Earth Day if they were already supporters of Earth Day, which is not, sadly to say, the general public. 2. Nobody does that. 3. These public advertisements go away after the Earth Day hype is gone, as was conceded when my opponent when he didn't respond to "[they] disappear soon after Earth Day. " To announce is "to make known publicly" (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Because the public don't know their message through their unsuccessful websites, it is not a public announcement. In conclusion, my opponent's only argument against my resolution is the fact that they still have websites, but as I have proved, people don't actually go to these websites on days other than Earth Day. Earth Day supporters contradict themselves because they get all hyped up about how Earth Day is every day, only on Earth Day, and they only publicly announce that Earth Day is every day during the Earth Day hype. Because they only tell us about Earth Day on Earth Day, instead of every day, they contradict themselves. Thank you for reading.
Earth Day supporters contradict themselves.

Thank you, mongeese, for your speedy response. My opponent presented two arguments this round: 1. "The point I'm trying to make is, the websites don't exactly accomplish the main goal of Earth Day supporters, which is to remind everybody that every day is Earth Day." The resolution at hand has absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness of Earth Day supporters in their campaigning, only whether or not they continue campaigning after April 22nd. By demonstrating in Round 1 that they do, I have refuted Pro's claim. Questions on the usefulness of websites as advertising tools are irrelevant. 2. "Because the Earth Day supporters only make themselves and their phrase known on Earth Day, they contradict themselves, because they are basically saying that they should be having commercials and signs and such every day, but they don't." Pro's opening statement claimed Earth Day supporters do not "publicly announce" their message beyond April 22nd. However, I provided numerous sources in Round 1 showing that Earth Day supporters make themselves and their message known publicly all year long. Given that Pro did not restrict publicity to mean only commercials or signs, he has no grounds to argue on this matter. Websites constitute public announcements and Pro's claim is refuted. ::Conclusion:: My opponent has not refuted the fact that my sources demonstrate year-long advertising by Earth Day supporters, effectively defeating the resolution. Instead, he has attempted to shift the focus from publicity to effectiveness, claiming that Earth Day supporters must have "commercials and signs and such every day" to transmit their message. This is, of course, both a delayed attempt to amend the resolution and a blatantly restrictive use of the phrase "publicly announce." As the sources I provided in Round 1 are both open to the public and operating all year long, the resolution is negated. Thanks again to mongeese and I await his closing statements.
Earth Day supporters contradict themselves.

Thank you for responding. You say that these Earth Day supporters have websites that everyone visits all year round. There is only one problem: most people don't know that these websites exist. People are always watching TV, and listening to the news, and reading signs. Around Earth Day, every year, commercials, news broadcasts, and signs talk about Earth Day. Everybody gets the message. A few weeks later, this message starts to disappear, and most people forget about Earth Day. However, just because a website exists, doesn't mean that people start to visit that website. These websites are too passive. People don't just randomly feel like going to an Earth Day website. They have to be told to do this by Earth Day supporters, unless they are Earth Day supporters themselves. And do you really see any ads anywhere advertising these sites, and telling the world about Earth Day? Maybe you have, but most of them disappear soon after Earth Day. The point I'm trying to make is, the websites don't exactly accomplish the main goal of Earth Day supporters, which is to remind everybody that every day is Earth Day. Because anyone who bothers to go to Earth Day websites already believe this, and know this, and perhaps preach it. Websites are just too passive to get a huge message across. A website is not a public announcement; it is just a little page that nobody knows exists. In conclusion, these year-round websites fail to remind people that every day is Earth Day, because the people who visit them already remembered Earth Day, and just want to do more. Thus, the Earth Day people cannot preach their initial message through websites successfully, and the websites fall into irrelevance. Because the Earth Day supporters only make themselves and their phrase known on Earth Day, they contradict themselves, because they are basically saying that they should be having commercials and signs and such every day, but they don't. Thank you.
Earth Day supporters contradict themselves.

I thank mongeese for starting this debate. I've been itching for an unusual topic and I think this qualifies. My opponent claims that Earth Day supporters contradict themselves by stating "Every Day is Earth Day" only on Earth Day (April 22nd). My goal is thus to demonstrate that no such contradiction exists. ::Year-Round Sentiment:: According to my opponent, publicizing that every day should be Earth Day is only done on April 22nd. However, numerous websites display this message prominently all year long. Some examples include: 1. The Earth Day Network [1] 2. The World Wildlife Organization [2] 3. The Environmental Protection Agency [3] In addition to constantly advertising this message, these Earth Day-affiliated websites, as well as others [4][5], also instruct supporters on how they can improve their own environmental impact every day. My opponent's own source [6], along with a related book [7], relay this same point to children. Given that these messages are present regardless of the date, my opponent's claim is refuted. ::Conclusion:: My opponent has come to the faulty conclusion that because Earth Day publicity is greatest on and around April 22nd, the supporters' message of making every day Earth Day ceases after that date. However, the passing of Earth Day does not silence its supporters and their message continues on in numerous locations. I thank mongeese again for the debate and await his response. ::References:: 1. http://earthday.net... 2. http://www.worldwildlife.org... 3. http://www.epa.gov... 4. http://network.earthday.net... 5. http://holidays.kaboose.com... 6. http://www.starfall.com... 7. http://www.amazon.com...
Earth Day supporters contradict themselves.

Okay, the phrase, "Every day is Earth Day," is common among Earth Day supporters. http://www.starfall.com... We hear this phrase on the news a lot. I see signs around town saying, "Every day is Earth Day." There's just one problem; I only see and hear these around the regular, established Earth Day. If every day was in fact Earth Day, then why wouldn't Earth Day supporters publicly announce it when the rest of the world forgets that it is Earth Day, and needs to be reminded. Earth day supporters claim that every day is Earth Day, only on Earth Day. Thus, they contradict themselves. Thank you.
Earth Day supporters contradict themselves.

Congrats to us both for completing this debate so quickly. My opponent has used R3 to reiterate his R2 argument: "A website does not grab attention." Unfortunately, Pro both continues to argue about a non-resolution item and completely ignores by statements to that effect. Once again, the effectiveness of websites as "attention-grabbers" has nothing at all to do with the question at hand. Pro's original stance was that Earth Day supporters contradict themselves because they "claim that every day is Earth Day, only on Earth Day." I have shown this to be false and my opponent has offered no rebuttal on this point. The resolution is negated. As a side note, Pro has defined "announce" to mean "to make known publicly" and then goes on to say that websites cannot constitute an announcement. Fortunately, as the websites I provided in R1 are open to the public, clearly present the Earth Day message, and can be accessed through numerous means (examples can be found in Pro's R2 argument), they fit the definition of announcements perfectly. ::Supporting Earth Day, Every Day:: While the primary Earth Day event is temporary, its supporters continue their message of conservation all year. Various websites, for children and adults, as well as at least one informative children's book, work to circulate their support long after April 22nd. The very existence of such sources after the Earth Day negates the resolution, but the fact that they provide information for the public on how they might continue to protect the environment further solidifies the awareness. ::Closing:: Pro's resolution was based on an incorrect premise that, following my rebuttal, he attempted to amend. However, the issue of effectiveness is non-resolutional and irrelevant to the current discussion. Because I have provided several examples of Earth Day supporters continuing their work well after April 22nd, whereas my opponent has not offered a single valid source, argument, or rebuttal, I strongly urge a Con vote. Thanks again to mongeese and thanks to all the readers!
The Wii is better than the PS3!!

Again, all I can say is that if this is in fact a debate on opinion, than there is no real way to end. I do think the Wii is fun. Good games and yes it is cheap.(As far as consoles go...) But the title of the debate is : "The Wii is better than the PS3!!" I simply am arguning that the PS3 in fact does have more to it than just a cool nunchuk and Mario. The PS3 includes a standard hard drive, a high definition Blu-ray optical drive, HD video output, Bluetooth wireless controllers, and–in the premium version–WiFi wireless networking. So if opinion is what enticies the voters heres, than I can't say much more than vote for me! However if you think the term "better" means more than just the games and more about the console and it's harware than vote for the one that has prooved more than just Super Mario. Whether one is more fun than the other, well thats up to you. You want more in your console, well my friends, you know who to vote for.
The Wii is better than the PS3!!

What I am arguing is the FUN FACTOR. As I stated, why buy a game that is pretty, but not fun? That is the problem with the PS3. The graphics are great, but the games aren't fun. Not only is the price unappealing, the isn't that variety of games. There ARE more comming, but the PS3 is full of FPS, and sports games. There ARE exceptions(little big planet) but there aren't enough for my grandmother to consider buying it, or my 5 year old cousin to consider asking for it, so thats why Wii has better games. I mentioned almost all Wii exclusives, except a few sports. Red Steel, Metal of Honor: Vanguard, Resident Evil 4, Ghost Squad, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, Brunswick Pro Bowling, Super Swing Golf, Sega Superstar Tennis, Mario and Sonic at the Olympic games, MLB Power Pros, Rayman Raving Rabbids, Smarty Pants, My Word Coach, Carnival Games, EA Play Ground, and Zack and Wiki are NOT by Nintendo, and NOT on the PS3. The Wii is not just great for Super Mario Galaxy(extend my list of games above that are WII EXCLUSIVE, and 3rd PARTY) And once again, Blue Rays are only really movies. And most of America still has the ordinary DVD players, and Blue Rays aren't needed QUITE yet. When the medium does change(Mabye another 4 years or so) Then we can talk about it. The Wii ALSO does photos, music,videos, downloadable games, and internet. So vote for Aff, because the Wii has more to offer, for a better price.
The Wii is better than the PS3!!

You are right about the release dates, and I'm sorry for that mis-fact. But not everything I mentioned was for gaming. Blue ray is the next "DVD". Clear and beutiful movies can be watched on the PS3 but this is not present in the Wii. To some the HD Factor is a big deal. This is crystal clear gaming and movie watching at its finest. Have you played the PS3? Trust me, it makes a difference. Listen the only thing that seemed unappealing to the public about the PS3 was the price. Again, as someone who owns one, I say the PS3 delivers. There is a wide selection of games that will come to the console. With the excepton of mario, zelda, and Wii games most of the games you mentioned can be found for the PS3. The issue of which console has better games is opinion. As I know the people voting here will probaly vote for the console they like more rather than taking into account the debate itself. I love a good Mario game, which is the only reason I bought a Wii. I bought a PS3 for Metal Gear Solid, 8 days, Twisted Metal, and other Sony games. The PS3 has more to offer than the Wii. The Wii channels are pretty nice, but I would rather go for the HD, Blue Ray, and features. The PS3 does photos, music, and videos as well. The PS3 also has a download feature where you can download tons of cool games and stuff. Well now I sound like I'm trying to sell one...But I guess I wish the price would come down so people can admire the true next generation of Gaming.
The Wii is better than the PS3!!

Well, actually, the PS3 has been out longer than the Wii. And honestly, they came out in the same WEEK! The PS3 came out Friday, November 17, 2006, and the Wii came out Sunday, November 19, 2007. So really, there is no excuse for the PS3 to have less games. However, game number isn't my argument, its game variety. Next, all of the advantages you stated are for GAMING, and yet, you say the Wii is only for gaming! (When its not, apply my arguments from my first speech on the Wii channels!) Also, you use HD as an advantage. However, that doesn't have anything to do with my argument of older people playing. HD is great, but whats the point of having a pretty game, thats not fun? Now, on to games. my opponent stated a list of games in certain genres. And I will do the same for Wii, and Add more genres the PS3 doesn't have. Action: Zelda twilight Princess, Red Steel, Metal of Honor: Vanguard, Call of Duty 3, Resident Evil 4. Ghost Squad, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, and Metroid Prime 3.(most are Wii exclusive) Sports: Wii Sports, Madden 07, Madden 08, MLB 2K8, NBA Live 08, Brunswick Bowling, Super Swing Golf, FIFA 08, SEGA Superstar Tennis, MLB Power Pros, Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08, and The Bigs. Family and Party: Warioware, Wii Play, Rayman Raving Rabbids, Super Smash Bros Brawl, Smarty Pants, Big Brain Academy, My Word Coach, Carnival Games, Mario Party 8, EA Playground, and Guitar Hero 3. (MANY Wii exclusive), My Sims, Animal crossing Wii Platforming: Super Mario Galaxy, Zack and Wiki Racing: Mario Kart Wii, Exite Truck, Need for speed Carbon So, the Wii has a greater variety of games, is not just a gaming console, and came out AFTER PS3, and yet has better games.
The Wii is better than the PS3!!

You are right about one thing, there are way more titles out for the WII. The Wii has also been out for a longer period of time, providing more of a chance to release more games than the newly released PS3. But remember the Wii came out for the public with 3-4 games anticipation. (Mario Galaxies, Zelda Twilight Princess, Super Smash: Brawl, Red Steel)The reason why the Wii sold so well is not because of the game titles, although that helped a little. The main two reasons were the originality of the motion controller and the price. The Wii is "better" than the PS3 when it comes to price I suppose. But you suggest that the Wii has something for everyone. Well as someone who owns all three of the major consoles right now, I can safely say that the Wii lacks some things that the PS3 has. First of all the Wii is only for gaming, right. So all your paying for is another game console from Nintendo. The PS3 includes a standard hard drive, a high definition Blu-ray optical drive, HD video output, Bluetooth wireless controllers, and–in the premium version–WiFi wireless networking. (This also explains the high price) The Wii, I have to admit, has a DVD drive...but it can't play DVDs. Wii has no hard drive. The PS3 is also the new HD core of Sony's modern take on the stereo system, offering 5.1 Dolby Digital Surround and true 1080p high definition video playback from prerecorded Blu-ray movies. The PS3 has wirless controllers that work with motion too. Games like "Heavenly Sword" use this fiture very well. The game selection is also very good. Sports: All-Pro Football 2K8, FIA World Touring Car Championship, Jikkyou Powerful Pro Baseball (All of these are exclusive to Sony. There are plenty of other sports games out there for all consoles, PS3 as well) Action: Metal Gear Solid 4, Hevenly Sword, Resistance: Fall of Man, Brave Arms, Code Arms Assult, Eight Days, Twisted Metal (Again, all exclusive to the PS3. Others like Call of Duty 4 and Resident Evil are for PS3 too) Then you got family games and party like games: Guitar hero, rock band, and an exculsive party game called Buzz! Quiz TV. I guess it depends on how you define better. Better like the one console that has more to it, better quality, and a wider variety of games for ALL AGES than I guess the PS3 is better. But if the Wii is better than "better" means the one that is smaller and has a couple of interesting games and clogs the toliet easier than the other consoles...
The Wii is better than the PS3!!

Wii has better games, features, and sells more! Not to mention its by NINTENDO, the first people, besides Atari, to make a system! Sony's PS3 has sold terribly, and will continue to Advantage 1: Games Wii has better games. Titles like Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros Brawl, Zelda Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime 3, Wii Sports, Rayman Raving Rabbids, Resident Evil 4, Warioware Smooth Moves, and the upcoming Mario Kart Wii prove this. PS3 doesn't have NEARLY this amount, and i barely said half the good Wii games! Advantage 2: Features Not only does the Wii have the great games, but it also has the Wii Channels. Weather, News, Online Polls, Miis, The Virtual Console, Wiiware, Mii Contests, and Photos are included. And also, an Internet Web Browser is available for download. Advantage 3: Variety of Games The Wii has games for violent gurus, like No More Heroes, kids, like High School Musical: Sing It! , sports fans, like Wii Sports, Nintendo fans, like Super Mario Galaxy, parties, such as Guitar Hero 3, and Super Smash Bros, and even older people, like Big Brain Academy, and my word coach. The PS3 doesn't have NEARLY this! Please don't vote on the Neg, unless every advantage is answered.
Why you should wear uniforms to school

Not wear uniforms: 1. Detrimental to Adult Development: The path to adulthood is mostly honed through the duration in schoolings. Therefore, your path towards adulthood can be hindered with the use of uniforms. Since it is mandatory, you cannot decide for yourself affecting your developmental of adulthood. Being restricted to wear uniforms, you are cheated out from making decisions. 2. Affect ones Self-Image: Uniforms aim to give a homogeneous look. Uniforms don't improve a student's self-image because everyone looks the same. All students have different body types, weights, and heights. When looking in the mirror, he/she depreciates his own self-image due to the fact they think they don't look their best. If uniforms were't mandatory, students will have the free will to choose clothes that they feel comfortable in. 3. Uniforms are Boring: Homogeneity is boring. Thus, seeing the same thing everyday can be a ghastly sight. 4. Uniforms are costly: Those who approve of uniforms think they provide a cheaper alternative. Although the cost may seem appropriate by middle-class, the cost of uniforms can be a burden for people in poverty or in the lower-class.
Harry Potter is the best movie

Harry Potter might have some deeper meanings, But for entertainment purposes (the true purpose of movies and books) it's horrible. Strange Story Plots? All of the books in the Rowling's Harry Potter series consist of him fighting Voldemort and almost always losing. He somehow always survives and ends up killing Voldemort at the end. How does he kill Voldemort though? Both professional wizards and witches try to kill him, But end up being so scared of him, They dare not say his name. But a random kid who just came out of school could kill him. Even in the Sorcerers Stone, Harry faced Voldemort, Yet survived, Even though he was only a teenager. Where's All the Teaching? Even though the book is staged in a school, There is barely any teaching scenes, And of those scenes, They often consist of Harry or another student being the target of some random teacher.
Harry Potter is the best movie

The books aren"t just about a boy wizard dealing with teen angst and the fact that an uber-powerful, Psychopathic bad guy is trying to kill him. J. K Rowling"s magical wizarding world is a painfully beautiful reflection of our own. Mudbloods and Prejudice The depiction of "mudbloods" (wizards who are born of muggle parents) acts as a simple but profound mirror to every kind of prejudice in the modern world. Voldemort"s obsession with killing his own muggle father and the pedestal upon which he places "pure-blood", Speaks to racism, Violence and power (and the ever-present connection between the three). Mudblood Ministry of Magic and the Workplace Harry"s first visit to the Ministry of Magic paints an enchanting picture of the workforce " memo"s flying to their recipients, Workers transported to their office through a fireplace, A giant gold fountain in the atrium and a "Department of Mysteries" #livingthedream. Magical Government The deeper layers of Rowling"s magical government, However, Reveal the often ineffective and self-serving qualities of our own governing bodies. A perfect example comes in the penultimate chapter of The Goblet Of Fire, "The Parting Of The Ways", In which the head of the Ministry, Cornelius Fudge, Refuses to believe that Voldemort has returned, Choosing to act on his own fear rather than in the best interests of the wizards he serves.