BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same Sex marriage should be lagalized in the US

Thank you for the very insightful response. extend arguments.R1: Marriage is your business. Your argument, well your only argument, is the goverment should leave marriage. The first question you must ask: Can the goverment escape marriage? The answer is no they will likely stay in marriage. [1] New society has linked marriage as a civil legal matter, which now regulated by the state. [1] Also as the resolution states the word LEGALIZE. This implies there is a law, and laws = goverment. But I will argue the non related point anyways:The state began regulations of marriage the 16th century in Europe.[2] Now I will argue why the goverment is in marriage:As I have proven the goverment is involved in marriage for a purpose: Procreation. They are involved in marriage to try to... encourage procreative- type unions. These Unions ensure that the state gets what it wants: More souls to tax, and a larger workforce. The courts have ruled repeatedly that the reason they are in marriage is procreation. [3] So they regulate for a purpose, and will never leave marriage. Conclusion: SSM should not be legalized, also the resolution implies the goverment is involved in marriage as I used the word legalized, so his argument is invalid, and my arguments stand. VOTE CON!http://www.outsidethebeltway.com... [1]http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org... [2]William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) PDF [3]
9/11 wasn't the start of the war on terrorism

First I will attack my opponent then restate my case My opponent did not defend my attack against his C1 so he must agree with me He said the war was declared after 9/11 but there was a look out ttpe war for years but not after any other attack. At 2:40 p.m. in the afternoon of September 11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was issuing rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." — meaning Saddam Hussein — "at same time. Not only UBL" (Osama bin Laden), Cambone's notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying Now I will restate my case Contention1-After the attack of the twin towers the war was declared. At 2:40 p.m. in the afternoon of September 11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was issuing rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." — meaning Saddam Hussein — "at same time. Not only UBL" (Osama bin Laden), Cambone's notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying. "Need to move swiftly — Near term target needs — go massive — sweep it all up. Things related and not."[157][158] The NATO council declared that the attacks on the United States were considered an attack on all NATO nations and, as such, satisfied Article 5 of the NATO charter.[159] Upon returning to Australia having been on an official visit to the US at the time of the attacks, Australian Prime Minister John Howard invoked Article IV of the ANZUS treaty. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the Bush administration announced a war on terrorism, with the stated goals of bringing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and preventing the emergence of other terrorist networks. These goals would be accomplished by means including economic and military sanctions against states perceived as harboring terrorists and increasing global surveillance and intelligence sharing. The second-biggest operation of the U.S. Global War on Terrorism outside of the United States, and the largest directly connected to terrorism, was the overthrow of the Taliban rule of Afghanistan by a U.S.-led coalition. The United States was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with Islamic terrorism.[160][161]
9/11 wasn't the start of the war on terrorism

Hello I am Neg This debate is to show that 9/11 was the start of the war on terrorism. Not if something else would happen Contention1-After the attack of the twin towers the war was declared. At 2:40 p.m. in the afternoon of September 11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was issuing rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone. "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." — meaning Saddam Hussein — "at same time. Not only UBL" (Osama bin Laden), Cambone's notes quoted Rumsfeld as saying. "Need to move swiftly — Near term target needs — go massive — sweep it all up. Things related and not."[157][158] The NATO council declared that the attacks on the United States were considered an attack on all NATO nations and, as such, satisfied Article 5 of the NATO charter.[159] Upon returning to Australia having been on an official visit to the US at the time of the attacks, Australian Prime Minister John Howard invoked Article IV of the ANZUS treaty. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the Bush administration announced a war on terrorism, with the stated goals of bringing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and preventing the emergence of other terrorist networks. These goals would be accomplished by means including economic and military sanctions against states perceived as harboring terrorists and increasing global surveillance and intelligence sharing. The second-biggest operation of the U.S. Global War on Terrorism outside of the United States, and the largest directly connected to terrorism, was the overthrow of the Taliban rule of Afghanistan by a U.S.-led coalition. The United States was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with Islamic terrorism.[160][161] Now I will attack Cross apply my contention 1 against his contention 2
Dr.Who? vs. The Following.

Thank you You need only to watch the first season of Sherlock. 1.) Doctor who Is missing over a hundred of it's episodes. This can be annoying for the viewers as each episode is valuable part of the story. This can affect the the show negatively in many ways. (http://tardis.wikia.com...) 2.) 1989-2005 was a time where no new doctor who on television. For over 15 years they deprived their fans of new episodes. 3.) The 45 minute run time of Doctor who which long compared to some shows is half that of Sherlock's 90 minutes. With the full Hour and a half of time Sherlock's plot has more time to develop and take twists and turns. 4.) Benedict Cumberbatch, According to a online poll, is superior, Robert Downey Junior, in the role of sherlock homes. This is a valid argument since Robert Won a Golden globe for his performance. http://www.quibblo.com... (although this link does not mention the role of holmes, it is implied) 5.) Doctor who often uses special effects that many people find to be "Terrible" especially in the earlier episodes. This wouldn't usually be a problem except for the fact that the effects where a great deal of the show. http://io9.com... I'm going to eng it there because my opponent hasn't seen any Sherlock. I await his rebuttal Thank you Good night
The classic "MetalSlug" games are better then some of the newer games.

Before reading, i recommend you to have pretty good knowlege on the new titles in shooter catergory. This is esstential when comparing games. All i just. Give you link later.I have played all the Metal Slugs. Including on Playstation 2 and Playstation Portable allowing me to play Metal Slug anywhere i want to, so i have appropiate experience with the Metal Slug franchise.As said in the title."The classic "MetalSlug" games are better then some of the newer games"The phrase supports his side by saying "some" but this is the word that may make him lose.You might have underestimated Metalslug or just tried made the title to your advantage or im wrong. Metal Slug is better than most new games.I will support the statement "More better game than newer games" to defeat the case "better than some games" GameplayThe gameplay of Metal Slug is more enciting, supported and perfected in a way to try to make the player feel the intensity and unleash some skills out in gaming. Dodging hostile fire, reflexes, quick draw suggestions. But mostly reflexes and reaction time. (Basically reflexes)Compared to many new action games such as call of duty and battlefield. This will cause repetetive action. If your like me and have been a playing cod and bf for like 6 years straight (That's how dumb i am) you won't be as bored as me when i play those games.This fast paced 2D side scroller provides all key features to keep you engaged with the game.By adding, new interesting enemies at sensible frequencies, scenarios, sound track. The gameplay gives much more great impact than most newer games. GraphicsWhen comparing a HD game to a side scrolling 2D shooter. You can't really make a point when your on a 2d game. The art and design of metal slug isn't much because new games gives you an atmosphere of where your at with quite a visual gaming.Conclusion alreadyThe debate title says newer games and i don't really understand what is newer. "Newer" is not a word so i will awate your response.It is all opiniated in what they have done influencing their idea into what games they play. Everyone is like that when they talk about what games are good. I dont know what im doing anymore.
The classic "MetalSlug" games are better then some of the newer games.

This is my first time at this, so please no mean/offensive comments... I grew up playing MetalSlug and have found myself playing even now with all the amazing games this time period has to offer... The game makes me feel like I did when I would go to a restaurant with my father as a child and find one the old arcade machines with this game... It has given me countless hours of entertainment that most other games just can't. I know what your thinking, yes, the animation is not that good for the classic games, but when they were released, think about how much cooler it must have seemed for that kind of animation to be out to the public. I own a copy of MetalSlug 4-5 and I have found myself playing it over and over again, finding different ways to complete the games using the weapons, vehicles, and games mechanics the game has to offer. Now, these are only the boss battles, and a very good run at them too, but this is a great example of the game play this game offers... http://www.youtube.com...
Resolved: It is logically impossible for the Judeo-Christian Conception of God to Exist.

I thank royalpaladin for starting this debate. "A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction." (1) In order for a concept to be logically impossible there must be a clear, unanswerable, contradiction present. If there is even a logical possibility the Judea-Christian God could exist, the resolution is defeated. Also, while this may be obvious, Pro has the entire BOP to show exactly why the Judea-Christian concept of God is logically impossible. Con must refute Pro's arguments. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: It is logically impossible for the Judeo-Christian Conception of God to Exist.

The following conditions apply to this debate. The opponent who accepts this debate agrees to abide by these conditions. 1. The argument by faith "I have faith so it must be true" is not permissible in this debate. 2. God is constrained by logic. This means that the opponent cannot just claim that God is exceptional and therefore all of my arguments are invalid automatically.
When Mastery Starts a Debate, It is Hard to WIn

"I argue that because of the few people that vote on his debates, Mastery simply has to ask a friend to vote for him and he would turn the tides around."I consider this a concession that it is ALWAYS easy to win a debate by just asking a few friends. So you accept that Mastery can easily be beaten this way. It is thus conceded that it is not hard to win against Mastery."You unfairly vote against Mastery"I did NOT. He set up the rules, and he admitted they need FIXING, acknowledging they are DEFUNCT. If he starts a debate on defunct rules, he is in break of conduct and that earns him his 7-point-loss which he himself demanded. I consider this absolutely fair.However, even if it WAS unfair - which it is NOT - it would still be easy."his arguments they are actually quite strong."Well, that doesn't mean they cannot be as easily disproved as others. The deductive method is fairly easy to apply.I wish you the best of luck, and we hand this over to the audience, then.Thanks, this was fun.Thanks all, take care!
When Mastery Starts a Debate, It is Hard to WIn

I argue that because of the few people that vote on his debates, Mastery simply has to ask a friend to vote for him and he would turn the tides around. You unfairly vote against Mastery, and if you examined his arguments they are actually quite strong. You have good points though. Looks like I lose again! NEXT UP: IT IS FAIRLY HARD TO LOSE AGAINST 9SPACEKING :P
When Mastery Starts a Debate, It is Hard to WIn

This man is mastery: http://www.debate.org... He has started all debates except one, which he accepted (which he also tied.) I argue it is hard to win against Mastery because he has won 12 debates, tied 3 (two of which were not voted on), and lost 5. His win against lose/tie is very high, and his newest "Opponent chooses topic" debates are extremely effective, him losing one only due to forfeit. His elo ranking is relatively high, being in the 97 percentile, and he is very knowledgeable in all the debates he started, even the ones he lost, he provided lots of information and sources to support his claim. His biggest lost (other than the one he accidentally forfeited on) is merely 9 points, (and that was probably his first debate, being very "noob" as commented) the others being 3,2, or even 1 point difference. As you can see it is very difficult to win against Mastery. Even if there was a random chance of winning against Mastery based on his current status, the opponent would Win only 25 times out of 100. That's a very small ratio! In conclusion Mastery is hard to win against. (Especially if he starts a debate. Then he ties only two!)
yugioh is better than pokemon in the sense of strategy

I commend my opponent for posting (as most new members don't anymore) and I look forward to an awesome debate. ============================================================================ REBUTTAL ============================================================================ Argument 1: "there are plenty more cards that have different uses in different situations, and many effects that can reverse the entire outcome of the game". Well, I must disagree. According to pokeorder.com, (www.pokeorder.com) there are more than 900,000 different combinations of Pokemon, Trainer Cards and energy cards. They released another article saying that there are 500,000 different combination in Yugioh. Also, I must look to the rules of each card playing game in this resolution at hand. The rules of Yugioh state that one must only have only 5 trap, magic, equip, and field cards allowed on the field at a time. Also, one may have only 5 monster cards at a time. Whereas in pokemon, you can play 10 at a time of each card AND monsters. Therefore, there are more combinations. Argument 2: "i play both" Really, that's great. You failed to state any sources, or even improve your argument when I forfeited. Also, in my first argument of the round, I asked you to do 4 things. You did 3. Therefore, I urge a con ballot on the resolution at hand. Thank you. I urge a con ballot.
is world peace possible

"If everyone was vaporized the buildings and stuff will fall then nobody can fix it." How exactly does this disprove my claim that if everyone were vaporized we'd have peace? "Also eveytime a war stops it seems like after a while anothsr war will start again" I like to think that the world is moving away from this. Weapons are getting too efficient at killing. Eventually everyone will be held in check by the mutual possibility of death. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was a big theme of the Cold War. Direct fighting never broke out between USSR and USA because of the high possibility of destruction. USSR and USA had thousands of nuclear bombs. In other words, "whoever shoots first dies second." (http://www.nuclearfiles.org...). "Each week several crimes will happen also in schools bullies will hit other people and voilience always happens." Again, just ignoring my point about the vaporization of all living things. In fact, Con never even claimed which world he was referring to. There isn't much fighting on Mars. Just a couple of our robots taking soil samples and getting pictures of rocks.(http://en.wikipedia.org...). I'd say Mars has achieved word peace. Same with Venus. Any life on Venus died a long time ago. The atmosphere cannot sustain life anymore. (http://www.sophisticatededge.com...).
is world peace possible

That first sentence is incredibly difficult to follow but I will try anyway."Right now korea and Japan is in a cold war because Japan thinks an Korean island is theirs also north korea and south korea are getting ready for war."I will break down this quote one part at a time. "Right now korea and Japan..."Con claims that they are having tensions right now. Just because something is happening right now, that does not mean things will not get better. "north korea and south korea are getting ready for war." I'd like some sources for this please. In fact I would like sources for the claim about the aforementioned Korean/Japanese cold war.Even if the claims were true, "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens"There was a missle shot at an airplane." This was due to a mistake. The russians thought that they had shot down a Ukrainian cargo plane.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk...)There is more or less a war going on there, but by no means does that entail we will never see world peace. There has not been an all-out war between world powers since the end of WWII, around 70 years ago. The United States hasn't declared war since WWII ended, and if there were a war, the USA would find a way into it. (http://en.wikipedia.org...).NATO was invented to stop the spread of communism in Europe. Now, there's no more communism for NATO to fight. (http://www.history.com...). This alone should be evidence that the world is becoming more peaceful. Even though there is tension between Russia and Europe, it's not going to result in war. It is just a dick measuring contest. Neither side can back down without looking weak, so they'll both pretend that they need to take down the other. There has always been conflict in the Middle East. The Middle East is currently going through their version of the European Medieval times. In 500 years or so, the Muslim countries will probably be good friends. Europe has done that, and the Middle East will too. I believe that the best course of action to create world peace is to limit the population and use more accessible energy sources. If we didn't have to fight over water/oil, and could rely on having enough water and using the sun, resource wars will never happen. If we can curb the population, resource wars would be even LESS common. In conclusion, every claim that Con made was based on contemporary problems. Just because one problem exists now, does not mean it will exist in 200,000 years. By the way, the claim that "World peace is impossible" is ridiculous. If I can prove that there is even one situation where this would be false, I win the debate. So here I go: If every life form on earth were vaporized instantly, there would be peace. No wars, no fighting, no jealousy, no yearning. Just peace.
is world peace possible

As there are no major wars going on there are serval wars going on because of religion and money also right now korea and Japan is in a cold war because Japan thinks an Korean island is thiers also north korea and south korea are getting ready for war. Also there was a missle shot at an airplane. The missle was a Russian missle and even though the U.N is here when a war starts they send troops to fight and stop the war. So yeah world peace is impossible.
is world peace possible

Humans have gone from war being honorable to war being despicable. People don't want to go to war anymore. There has not been a large scale war since the founding of the UN. Yes there is a lot of bad stuff going on right now, but that doesn't mean it will never stop. Peace starts with the people. If nobody wants to fight, the government cannot force them. "With all these evnts happening it seems so slim that we will ever manage world peace."What I take from this is that Con has conceded that I am correct. The phrase "seems so slim" means that there is a chance of it happening. A small chance, but a chance. The debate is not about whether or not world peace will happen, but if it is possible. Even if something has a 1/100,000,000,000,000 chance it is still a possibility. Therefore Con has conceded that I am right and has lost the debate.
A women's place is in the home

Do u know that around 50% of marriages these days are ending in divorce, so what should women do in that case? Moreover, do you really want to sit at home all day instead of having useful time, for example ,woman can work about 3-4 hours a day and believe me it will worse a time, because it has many advantages like: simply woman will not be bored, also at home usually woman just stay alone, while at work or somewhere outside she will have interaction with others. You mentioned United Arabic Emirates, but do know that to stay at home it is a part of their traditions? But what about Evrope? It is well know that women were fighting for their rights for a long time, and especially evropean women, so today they have these rights and I don't think that they are going to sit at home. In addition, nowadays more and more people are chosing best univerities to study and it is obvious that among them also females and finally they graduate them and do you think that after getting high education diploma, thy will stay at home? I don't think so, I think that women's place not only at home
A women's place is in the home

I agree with you, but in my opinion women must keep focus of her family, while men are making money for them. But of course, in the case a man is not working, woman will have to work! For example, women of Arabic Emirates have cars, golden jewerlies, houses and etc. But they do not work! Because their husbands, fathers, brothers work for them! Isn't it better to be loved and given attention by somebody, instead of working for somebody! I think, women's role is to keep house warm and cozy!
Should Minors Ages 14-16 Be Allowed To Get Tatoos With A Parent's Consent

I am against tattooing on minors, for whatever reason. There is a time when you have to put your foot down . Teenage life is nothing more than hormones and minds are all over the place. Around this point in life it might seem cool to get a school love's name tattooed on you. You aren't quite old enough to make a decision as serious as this. Marking your body is a serious decision and should be taken as such.
Should Minors Ages 14-16 Be Allowed To Get Tatoos With A Parent's Consent

I am for minors ages 14-16 getting tattoos with a parent's consent. Think about it. If a family member passes away, and they didn't have any belongings or trinkets left behind to give them, this would work. Say your grandparents died. You didn't know them very well or anything about them, except that they loved you very much, and didn't have anything to give you to remember them by. A tattoo can't get broken or lost; it's the perfect solution. Also, if minors age 14-16 think that are "grown" and that they can handle it, let them go for it. Show them that everything isn't what it's cracked up to be. Minors age 14-16 should be allowed to get a tattoo with a parent's consent. If the tattoo symbolizes something important, let them go ahead and get it done.