BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
World Government in the Future

Overall, this debate is way too general, however depending on different circumstances, there are different problems that may arise. I understand that this isn't a real debate. One obvious problem is the lack of compatibility between different regions and forms of government. Virtually any religious country would not tolerate a totalitarian government, at least not for long. Muslims in the middle east would not be for a world democracy. The world is in general more Christian than Muslim, especially when comparing those not only that are Christian and Muslim, but have Christian culture and Islamic culture. Those of Islamic culture would not want their rules being made by Christians, not only because of resentment between the two groups, but also because there are certain Islamic beliefs that do not work with western democracy, a prime example being women's rights. A republic like the United States would not work well either. This is because there are massive income gaps between nations. Therefore if each nation acted as a province, nations like the U.S. and Germany would face much higher federal taxes than places like Zimbabwe or Macedonia. It would not be beneficial for the richer states to be a part of the global union. I don't see a situation in which it isn't beneficial to every single nation of the world to join together to form one nation. It would also face similar problems to the Roman Empire. The Romans allowed different areas of the Empire to maintain their own cultures. Those different cultures created a lack of Roman identity in the long run. This lack of identity made the people feel more loyal to their local area than the Roman Empire, which allowed rebellions, new factions to form, and the eventual fall of Rome. There are far more differences across the whole world, and those differences are more potent. Overall, the arrangement would fail because of a lack of a loyalty due to existing cultural identities, and the lack of benefit to all member nations.
Obama made the right choice in sending more troops to Afghanistan.

My opponent has failed to commence argumentation. In order to "get things moving," I shall define several terms: right - in accordance with what is good, proper, or just. http://dictionary.reference.com... sending more troops to Afghanistan - http://www.cnn.com... It is up to my opponent to affirm the resolution, and thus far, he has not made an attempt to argue. I hope my clarifications and definitions will move this debate further along. I must ask my opponent: 1) Is it right to announce such a plan when enemies and dangerous Middle Eastern countries are aware of what Obama has decided? 2) Is it right to send more troops and then hope that one can remove them within several years? 3) Is it right to threaten the soldiers already in Afghanistan with removal in several years? There are quite a few soldiers who do not want to leave Afghanistan.
Obama made the right choice in sending more troops to Afghanistan.

I do not want to take advantage of my opponent by proposing the definitions and making a case based off those definitions. As Instigator and Pro, it is my opponent's duty to clarify the resolution, present key definitions, and to state exactly what he wants to debate. It would be appreciated if my opponent would also explain which "sending of troops" he is referencing. I thank both my opponent and the audience for taking time to focus on this debate. I await argumentation.
Darwinism, Evolution by Natural Selection, and Athiesm is False and Un-scientific

Darwinism is an out-dated and Un-proven philosophy. This Century-old idea of evolution and creation without a God is un-scientific, and requires much assumption in their far-reached conclusions that we have no creator, and that living things are capable of adding new genes to a gene pool. I would like to argue first off, that Darwinism, and Macro-Evolution for that matter, is a philosophy and not a scientific theory. Science can be accurately described as the study of observable happenings, but we cannot observe Macro-Evolution (We can only guess based on fossils found from thousands of years ago), nor can we logically discard the possibility of a creator.Secondly, I would like to argue that a Universe could not have created itself, nor could it have always existed. It takes simple mathematical skills to know that something cannot come from Nothing, but we also know that Matter and energy could not have existed forever due to the law of thermodynamics, which states that we have a finite amount of energy in the universe. If the Big Bang theory was correct in it's assumption that all matter was pressed up to each other in a star-like ball for eternity before the big bang, than our Finite amount of energy would have already been used up.Thirdly, The Second law of Thermodynamics states that without outside influence, order will always arrive to disorder. for example, if a room is left untouched for 100 years, then it will become dusty, moldy, and quite messy as wind and drafts will eventually come through the decaying walls. This law can also be applied to Earth's Nature. Cells will not evolve into larger things, but will de-evolve and consolidate into more un-organized things. It takes an outside force to keep the world orderly, and intact.Lastly, It is hard to believe that there has always been living things, and I do not believe anyone would support the idea that there have always been living things in the universe. But if everything was previously un-living, than how did the first living thing come about? Something living cannot be created from something Non-Living. As my Biology textbook clearly states it:"As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis."
Santa Claus is a creepy old man

Pro forfeits this round. Extend all my previous arguments and rebuttals.Here's a run down of why I think I deserve to win.1. Pro does not back up his statements. He does not explain why certain actions entitle Santa to be creepy.2. His arguments and rebuttals are rarely more than 3 lines long, which shows that his depth of thinking and analysis is shallow and flawed. You cannot have a good argument or rebuttal in 3 lines.3. He has forfeited his last round with me. 4. Last round, Pro did not contest my arguments.Thank you all, and I hope you've all had and are having a good holiday season.Vote Con.Vote HardCore.Pwnography.
Santa Claus is a creepy old man

My opponent gave some well thought out responses last time that I want to respond to. It is true I have been responded in a sentence or two to each point but that was because I didn’t see it necessary to go into too much detail. 1. The fact that the song even suggests Santa is watching you would seem to imply that you have no privacy. It could be metaphorical to a certain extent while still having truth to it. If he did not literally watch all the children how would he know who is naughty or nice? [1][2] 2. Someone who is breaking and entering may themselves not be creepy but since their act is creepy they will become creepy for doing it. 3. The fact that Santa’s primary payment is milk and cookies, which he eats himself leaves little for the elves to be paid in. If he can’t pay them can they be much more than slaves? Interestingly if the Cookies you leave for Santa were made by Keeblers they too would be made by Elves. The difference between you slaving away fro your parents and Elves for Santa has to do with the family, the Elves aren’t related to Santa, he has no paternal obligation to them. Sure he gives them free room and board but slaves get that. In fact that could be another reason he lives on the North Pole, like the Russians had their worst prisons in Siberia, making it hard to escape. (for more see first video) 4. The Parents know Santa like the know Tom Cruise or any movie star, they know them but not personally, should parents let their children sit on Tom Cruise’s lap? It is supervised however as most parent would leave their kid alone with Santa unsupervised, therefore they acknowledge the risk of leaving their children alone with strangers. 5. Avoiding Jews is creepy to Jews there is not much more that can be said here. 6. It is true like any celebrity, he desires privacy, however since he goes to one of the most remote places on Earth, he actually draws attention to himself. In addition to all that some songs attesting Santa’s creepiness, “Santa Baby” and “I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus” Santa is a married man what is he doing? One more piece of evidence I would like to present is the song "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer", Again like my opponent did with Santa climbing down the chimney he may admit it’s a crime but not creepy, but I reiterate, if someone is a reckless driver with a hit and run, that would be annoyingly unpleasant and someone to be avoided. (see second video) Don’t you want justice for Grandma? My opponents conclusion is an appeal to emotion and would be appropriate were it the last round, but since we he has two more rounds, it is premature. Thus far I have established Santa to be a trespassing, adulterous, reckless driver who likes to watch little kids’ every move. 1 http://www.google.com... 2 http://www.whatsbuzzin.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Santa Claus is a creepy old man

I would like to add that the way the argument is set up even if my opponent disproves Santa is creepy in one of my points, he doesn’t win unless he disproves them all. Since I didn’t define creepy I can’t really contest my opponents definition. When I say harmless I am including psychological harming, being excessively creepy especially around children can cause people psychological harm. My opponent claims the line from the song is a metaphor. That may well be but the reasoning he gives is that it would be impossible for Santa to watch everyone, it would be equally impossible for him to fly around the world in a single night if we are looking at normal circumstances. Criminals most likely are creepy since part of the definition my opponent presented was “annoyingly unpleasant” and I think most people would find breaking and entering to be annoyingly unpleasant. My opponent claims the Elves are not truly slaves, but most of the evidence he has likely seen comes from movies that could very likely be pro-Santa propaganda. Besides if you have ever seen Gone with the Wind you see the slaves in that are portrayed as being happy. Santa expects kids to sit on his lap true he doesn’t force anyone but would parents allow any other stranger to do that? If it is Santa’s goal to spread joy to the whole world on Christmas, then he is neglecting a very valuable clientele, in fact it would be beneficial for him, there is a higher chance that the kids’ parents are either lawyers, bankers, or actors which could all be beneficial for Santa’s image. He could go 8 nights rather than one. Perhaps though he is just lazy and doesn’t want to work more than 1 night a year. People often consider recluses to be creepy even if it isn’t warranted. 1. Children's Perspective My opponent says Santa is not creepy from the kids’ perspectives, but neither is the pedophile who tries to entice them to his car with candy.2. Parent's Perspective He may not seem creepy to many parents, but maybe they never gave it much thought, Most parents teach their kids not to talk to strangers, yet they let them talk to Santa despite them never having met except for a few minutes a year. I understand my opponent when he says that creepy is relative to the person’s perspective and that is true however, there are certain things almost everyone finds creepy: Strangers talking to their kids, strangers breaking into their house, strangers watching their kid when they sleep. Thanks again and I look forward to the next round.
Santa Claus is a creepy old man

I will be arguing that for several reasons Santa Claus is a creepy old Man, for the sake of this argument we will assume Santa exists1. He sees you when you're sleeping he knows when you're awake2. He climbs down people's chimney's in the middle of the night3. He has a slave force of midgets working in his sweatshop4. He wants stranger's kids to sit on his lap5. He is anti-Semitic ever notice how he never goes to the Jewish Kid's houses?6. He lives at the North Pole secluded from society, and outside the jurisdiction of international law.It is for the above stated reasons that I believe Santa is a creepy and maybe even evil old man.My opponent will have to defend his case why Santa is harmless
Video Games are Sports

Thank you for the humble response. I have checked your sources, and the definition that you provided for "sport" is definitely there. However, you should also put your eyes on the other definitions which also fit the criteria of video games. A second note on this, too, is that textbook definitions are dynamic.. Even if a dictionary's first entry says "physical," I'm sure that it is subject to change, because there are too many other factors telling us that eSports are definitely "sports." You say that prize pools don't contribute to the idea of eSports being physical sports. This was not my intention; I know that video games are not especially physical! However, the prize pool certainly attests to eSports being "true sports," such as your example of chess, which I will address soon. The reason that the money involved backs up the idea that they are sports is because it provides an example of how competitive they have become. It shows us that they are skill-based games that are taken very seriously at a professional level; thus, they are "sports." You may disagree with me due to your beliefs on the meaning of "sports," but it's at that point that it becomes semantics. You say that eSports appear on a separate category, and you are correct, as they are not physical sports. They are indeed a subcategory, but they are still sports, hence e"Sports." They are shown on ESPN because they are sports - after all, you said it yourself; they are a sports news source. It's an example of how close society is coming to accepting them as full-fledged "sports," not just a subcategory; it's all for very good reason. Your quote from the London Chess Conference is very interesting. However, I argue that video games are very similar. While not always as intense (it depends on the game and importance of the specific match in question), physical readiness is always a factor in mental capability, and video games is no different in how it is required. It's all physiology, and it is very important. You also say that chess has been recognized as a sport by the International Olympic Committee since 2000, but that is irrelevant to your point. One day, video games could receive the same recognition - it may sound far-fetched to you, but it is quite plausible in retrospect. To summarize; the textbook definition of sport is dynamic and biased towards previous beliefs (those beliefs being that video games are not a sport, which is why the physical part was clarified in the first place), the prize pool of eSports serves as an example to how competitive it really is, and video games do in fact also require some form of physical preparation and readiness.
Video Games are Sports

It is a controversial topic that sparks feuds from both sides of the coin; are video games really sports? However, many fail to note a plethora of points and concepts that more than confirm the idea that video games sports. The definition of sports, although varying with different diction and colloquialism across many textbooks, is "a game played either as recreation or competition." The argument is not semantics. Just as you can hunt game for sport, you can play video games as a sport. Whether it is physically taxing or not is irrelevant - as an example, the game of chess is widely accepted as a sport, but the game is a battle of not physical, but mental stamina. Those who play the game are indeed "athletes" - just not physical athletes - these video game athletes are playing sports. Video games have been gradually becoming accepted as sports, making appearances on sports channels and news worldwide. The professional scene in what is now being referred to as "eSports" is no joke - the prize pools for games such as Dota 2 or Halo 5: Guardians have been large, from a wallet-pleasing two million USD to a bank-crushing twenty million USD. These prizes compete with what many professional baseball or basketball players can make in a year; to say that these eSports cannot qualify as "true sports" is ludicrous. All around the world, there are many arguing for or against the idea that video games are sports. Only one side is correct. Due to the nature of video games, their current professional standings, and the definition of what a sport really is, it is factual that video games are a sport. Information on eSports prize pools: http://www.esportsearnings.com... Information on physical sport salaries: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Video Games are Sports

After reading your argument, I conclude that it's incredibly solid. I concede that at some point, video games will be considered sports at the same level of competitive physical sports. At the moment, eSports is not widely regarded as a sport outside of the eSports community (I'd personally have no problem with it being accepted as a real sport, but that has no bearing on the argument), as the president of ESPN said that video games are a competition rather than a sport, and Colin Cowherd publicly voiced his disdain for competitive gaming at the professional level on his show, The Herd (although it may be worth noting that these men were born in the 1950s and 60s respectively). Thanks to pro for showing me the reasons why you think the way you do, you have officially swayed me. I concede.
The South was justified in leaving the Union prior to the Civil War.

All propositions are true.(1)(2)(3) "The South was not justified in leaving the Union prior to the Civil War" is a proposition. So, "The South was not justified in leaving the Union prior to the Civil War" is true. Therefore, the South was not justified in leaving the Union prior to the Civil War. Sources Cited: (1) http://www.debate.org... (2) http://www.debate.org... (3) http://www.debate.org...
Formal letters are completely unnecessary

Further Rebuttals/Closing Arguments: 'I understand my side of the argument but as a closing remark, I'll just say that formal letters aren't really all that useful. Making something feel important because society says it is, doesn't make all that sense.'Well, there are many things that society deems important-and generally speaking, they all make sense. Formal letters fulfill a purpose of informing someone of an issue of significance, but again, in a clear and sensible way. For example, there's a distinction between a university, or a place of work, etc. and a friend or family member-the former you have no intimate or emotional relation to (it is a professional body), and the latter, you do have an intimate and emotional relation to. I.e, your boss (when writing a letter) isn't going to sound/write the same as a close friend; and this is perfectly normal. 'Letters are a means of communication so it would be better to get straight to the point than to start with all the formal greeting and stuff that nobody really needs to read.' This is easily negated by the fact that formal letters do get straight to the point, this is their purpose; and this is why formal letters, for formal matters, are better than informal ones. Anyway, I will leave the debate here and ask that voters vote CON. Thanks to Pro for instigating this topic.
Formal letters are completely unnecessary

R1 Rebuttals: Pro states in round one that formal letters are unnecessary because 'because the writer or the sender will not be able to completely express him/herself due to fact that the entire letter is polite and simple', but the entire point of a formal letter is that it is indeed polite and simple.' The purpose is to inform the reader of an important matter, not to engage the reader in friendly or casual discourse; one does not write formal letters to express themselves, one writes formal letters because there is a need to considerably, but sensibly, convey something of moderate urgency to the individual recipient of the letter. 'And if someone writes a letter that isn't formal and sends to the person/people in authority, it could be discarded and considered as rubbish which just shows that our opinions and feelings and voices can't be heard until they're expressed in a particular, subtle, polite way.' If anything, Pro has outlined here why we should keep formal letters. Many persons in authority are naturally accustomed to formal writing, so if they were to receive something informally, they may not treat it with the significance it requires; or they may reach the conclusion that the person who has composed it is of inferior intellect. There's some traditions and customs that exist for a reason; to ensure that things are kept simple. Informal letters to formal institutions would inevitably complicate matters. R2 Rebuttals: Pro begins this round by acknowledging that I have made a point, but then asserting that I actually haven't made one; which is confusing for readers to say the least. 'Or instead of the usual boring acceptance letter sent by the school telling me that I've been admitted, it could be a note.' There's certain things in life that need to be boring, formal letters being one of them. 'And informal letters don't necessarily have to be written in slangs. You could still use good punctuation and follow all the rules of grammar but the nature of the letter wouldn't be serious. It would just be like you're talking to a friend or to your parents.' Well, if we were to somehow change the tradition of formal letters, there is nothing to prevent slang or improper grammar from being used-especially if Pros example of 'like talking to a friend' was to be applied, as slang and informal language is often used in replacement of formal and proper language in discussion among friends.
Formal letters are completely unnecessary

You sort of, kind of, have a point there but... nah. In my most honest opinion, formal letters aren't really all that necessary. You could literally send a note saying "I need a job at the post of ______________" and then add your CV and stuff there. Or instead of the usual boring acceptance letter sent by the school telling me that I've been admitted, it could be a note. And informal letters don't necessarily have to be written in slangs. You could still use good punctuation and follow all the rules of grammar but the nature of the letter wouldn't be serious. It would just be like you're talking to a friend or to your parents.
Formal letters are completely unnecessary

Accepted. Why Formal Letters are NecessaryLet's assume that a few years ago, I received acceptance to a university. Naturally, I would've received a letter informing me of my unsurprising and expected acceptance. However, the letter would not have read: 'hai emily, u got acepted in to >>*this*<< school, get rewdy 4 it...vey stronge admisssion btw...u so grate, contratz'. No, indeed it would read: 'Dear Miss Emily, I am writing you to inform of your acceptance into >>*this*<< school, congratulations! You may contact us via this>>*email address*<<, or on >>**this**<< number for confirmation of your studying with us and further details of your course/fees and housing arrangements.' The same can be said for any other type of 'formal letter', whether it be a monthly bill, an invitation to a wedding, confirmation of your exams results, etc. Essentially, if a letter is supposed to be formal, then it must be formal. Informal letters would inevitably encourage unintelligent and unsophisticated dialect; undermining the most important of matters, thus rendering them frivolous and insignificant.