BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Traditional and eclectic martial arts are more effective than "self defence" fighting systems

No doubt traditional and eclectic martial arts are more effective in certain practice, whether they be fighting multiple attackers, going to ground, or fighting a fellow martial artist. However, one cannot simply use this as the basis of their argument, as it discounts the wider context of what make "self-defense" fighting systems applicable and viable. For instance, Krav Maga was invented by the Israeli special forces and in this context, it assumes that combatants have military gear on and may or may not be armed with knives or guns. Its ultimate situational application is therefore restricted to special operations, whether they be hostage situations or urban warfare and where traditional and eclectic martial arts would risk a head full of lead. In this context, it becomes apparent that discipline is subsidiary to the more pressing concerns of not getting shot and basic, drilled muscle reflexes are a more viable and cost effective alternative to learning the ancient wonders of Tai Chi. What this, therefore, suggests of the motion, that traditional and eclectic martial arts are more effective than "self defense" fighting systems, is that it is a brutal generalisation that completely disregards contextual applications of fighting systems, to simply settle the argument of who would win in a fight between Mr. Miagi and Zohan.
Traditional and eclectic martial arts are more effective than "self defence" fighting systems

I believe that traditional and eclectic martial arts such as Hapkido, taijutsu or ninjutsu are more effective than the "self defence" brand of fighting such as Krav Maga. First major reason, is that these self defence arts are only defensive. That cuts a lot of what could be done in half, they lack the discipline and the idea of a traditional or an eclectic martial art, which is both defensive and offensive, it already has what the self defense art does plus more. The defence art was designed to get you out of trouble, but usually against a standard attack, but not all attacks are standard, maybe your attacker has trained in a martial art, and can fight back, these self defence arts don't teach a combat scenario, they only teach you to put your attacker down then get out of there. Yes I'm Being a bit broad, I know there are techniques that teach breaking of bones and injury causing techniques but majority it's ground them then get out of there. If they go for a technique then get interrupted, they sent prepared or trained for that. Whereas a traditional martial art or an eclectic one has both offensive and defensive, if someone counters their defence then they can counter that. Eclectic and traditional martial arts teach a full curriculum, they allow you to use techniques that suit you and to vary the techniques to your fighting style. They are designed for battle, a lot if the traditional ones were used on the battlefield, to neutralise your opponent soon as possible, be it by breaking an arm or wrist, or killing them. Yet they also teach restraint, as you don't over use force and get arrested, it allows you to defend yourself in a complete matter, not just defence, or offence, but a perfect balance of both. Self defence arts are effective, just have a lot of gaps. For example a lot of fights, end up on the ground, but martial arts like Krav Maga don't teach that. I can see why, if you're on the ground fighting one guy there's a chance 8 of his friends are gonna kick your head in. But not teaching it means if your trapped on the ground you don't have the skills to get out of that situation. We all know that in the street you never go to the ground, but if they take you to the ground, traditional and eclectic martial arts at least give you the skills to survive in all situations. Sources: Way of the ninja by kaylan soto http://www.kmdi.com.au... http://www.sydney-selfdefence.com.au... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Personal martial art experience
Rolls-Royce is a better luxury car manufacturer than Bentley

Firstly, Bentley has comfortable seats hand made, easy to manoeuvre gives you or your driver a good driving experience and a brilliant speed just in case you are in a hurry. Secondly, wine? You can drive slower and more majestic, you do not need a specialised car like the Rolls-Royce and Rolls Royce is too expensive. And about the logo, Bentley's one has wings, if you think of wings, it is fast, smooth and a heavenly feel. Not like the Rolls-Royce, two R's? Really? That is a very very simple logo as if the Rolls ran out of ideas.
Rolls-Royce is a better luxury car manufacturer than Bentley

Rolls Royce is the best, because their cars are far more luxurious and classy than Bentley's. Bentleys are faster than Rollses, but would that matter, who can drink their wine as expensive as a house when the car's going 200 kilometers per hour? and where can you drive that fast? Isn't luxury all about the usefulness of everything that it includes? of course, it is to argue that you do need to have a car painted in the exact colour of your skin, or to not feel the road you're driving on at all. and then: looks, because when you want to impress, you shouldn't arrive in a Tata Nano ( only legal and available in India, at "850) but what looks more classy, a B with wings, or a statue of a beautiful woman in the wind. And look at the shape: Rounded (Bentley) or straight (Rolls), which one looks more luxurious and impressive? Definitely the Rolls!
Rolls-Royce is a better luxury car manufacturer than Bentley

On the hand-made part, Bentley has mostly hand-made parts, as the seats, however, A Rolls-Royce is almost entirely crafted by hand. Rolls-Royce offers a much greater range of options when looking at what they'll build in your car, where Bentley has an enormous list that seems to big to even read in years, Rolls Royce has a slightly smaller one, partially because, Rolls is the only car manufacturer that offers to build in whatever you desire, truly whatever you'd want. Rolls-Royce is often regarded as the most luxurious car manufacturer, although for a very long time, Bentley has been trying to take this position, still (I believe) they have not yet had success, even though they come close from time to time. Then on the logo, Bentley's is a B without wings, RR's is, as you said two Rs, however the mascot B does have wings, but is that able to beat a silver woman riding the wind? By far not. So, hereby, I think that Rolls-Royce has won.
NYC is better then Westchester county

There are several reasons as to why Westchester is better than NYC. The first is the economic attraction. My opponent brings up how Westchester is "exclusively rich," this is because the HQ of PepsiCo and Mastercard are located there. It also is know for much of its technology that it houses as it is known as the Techvalley. It rivals only the Silicon Valley in many recent cases have become a haven for new biotech companies with the new investments there [1]. Cultrually it has many films located there like the places from Big [2]. They house many novelists as well. My opponent's take on the economic factor in it of itself is a concession to the debate by showing by that factor alone that Westchester is better. My opponent hasn't brougth up anything on culture and we can see that Westerchest is also better there. As a result, I urge you to vote Con! Thank you. Sources1. (http://www.realestateindepth.com...)2. (http://www.nbcnews.com...)
NYC is better then Westchester county

New York city is obviously better then Westchester. New York has a diverse population, a well known city and is exclusive to rich and poor. Westchester is more private because only rich people live there. There's no popular attraction. They won't even let you park on any streets, even in "major" sites unless you are living in Westchester. New York city has worldwide attractions, while Westchester isn't even known in Stanford, Connecticut! (Stanford borders Westchester)
Earth is flat

You are stupid as fucc. Gravity exits in space too, And that is why the moon orbits around the earth. You can take a piicture if the moon in night beacause light does travel through our atmosphere. But in the vacuum of space, Waves such as light can travel, So there is no way the pictures could be real. You are an autistic cunt for believing this shiit just because the government tells you its true. Kill yourself
Killing Baby Girls is Wrong (& by Extension, So is Abortion in General)

Someone wrote: "Secondly, I am allowed to assume my opponent operates under the beliefs expressed in the document they provided with their round one post." No you aren't. "Third, I would like to see a detailed explanation as to how my opponent is not conflating "Female Feticide" with "Abortion"" I am not conflating. My main points are directed at female feticide, not at abortion in general. We can start with female feticide and leave abortion in general to a secondary discussion, if you like -- thus there is no conflation. Also, in your entire post, I saw no argument except a disagreement to my OP, which I will not accept as a legitimate argument. "I am referring to my opponent as "them" since I am making my case to the audience who hall vote on the issue, rather than to my opponent themselves." Your opponent is singular (one person), but the words "them," "their," and "themselves" are plural. That is incorrect grammar and is therefore unclear language. Thank you, at the very least, for not using the doubly ignorant and nonexistent word "themself" to refer to me. Please refer to me correctly -- by singular terms -- from now on, because I am not a plural group of persons. "Fourth, the issue with my opponent's usage of Baby comes not from inaccuracy of the terminology but the dishonesty I have blatantly demonstrated" Yes, you have indeed blatantly demonstrated dishonesty, but not on my part -- the blatant dishonesty is yours and yours alone. This debate is about babies (specifically about baby girls), and if you don't like that, then you have chosen the wrong debate in which to engage. You are free to concede defeat and withdraw from this debate about baby girls, but the debate subject is baby girls, and it shall remain steadfastly on the subject of baby girls until its conclusion. "Regarding my opponent's final statement, I will restate that I am simply disproving and discrediting my opponent's evidence" No you aren't. Also, your opinion on my argument's validity carries no weight. "Finally, I would like to address the fact that my opponent has misinterpreted my arguments, took quotes out of context, and in general avoided responding to a point with evidence or reason by restating a few points unaddressed by my opponent." No I didn't. " I sincerely hope my opponent responds as soon as they had during round two." Who are "they???" You only have one opponent in this debate, not a multitude of opponents. You need to stop referring to me by use of a plural term because doing so is incorrect grammar and is therefore unclear. You do not refer to yourself as "we," and nor do I refer to you as "you guys:" Make sure that you also refer to me using singular terminology only, from now on, because I am only one person, not a group of persons. Thank you very much.
Killing Baby Girls is Wrong (& by Extension, So is Abortion in General)

Thank you for responding so quickly. Since my opponent's second round was spent addressing points within my first round argument, I shall respond individually to each counterpoint provided. First off, I made sure to clarify that instead of arguing a moral quandary, I will be using a debate format to disagree and disvalue arguments made by my opponent. This statement is clear and apparent within my round one post. Secondly, I am allowed to assume my opponent operates under the beliefs expressed in the document they provided with their round one post. This is only fair, as there was no explanation nor any details added after the link to the aforementioned. Third, I would like to see a detailed explanation as to how my opponent is not conflating "Female Feticide" with "Abortion". Within the response, I saw no argument except a disagreement, which I will not accept as a legitimate counterpoint. As an addendum, I am referring to my opponent as "them" since I am making my case to the audience who hall vote on the issue, rather than to my opponent themselves. Fourth, the issue with my opponent's usage of Baby comes not from inaccuracy of the terminology but the dishonesty I have blatantly demonstrated considering the manipulative manner in which it is used. Regarding my opponent's final statement, I will restate that I am simply disproving and discrediting my opponent's evidence rather than arguing a moral query. Also, I would like to point out to my opponent that the audience shall cast their vote after the third round of argument, and that my opponent's view regarding my argument's validity carries no weight. Finally, I would like to address the fact that my opponent has misinterpreted my arguments, took quotes out of context, and in general avoided responding to a point with evidence or reason by restating a few points unaddressed by my opponent. "Thirdly, I would like scholarly sources stating that pre-birth humans have "Fingerprints", "Virtues", "Flaws", "Thoughts", and "Emotions". If such sources were to be provided, I would rest my tertiary point but for the time being it shall stay." "Thus, conflating the two topics is intellectually dishonest and I ask my opponent to modify or clarify their argument going forward." "My claim is only strengthened by the fact that my opponent has not referred to the topic of argument as "Female Feticide", though the provided source makes use of this terminology. With this, I believe I have made a strong case proving my opponent is using manipulative language." Thank you for reading my second argument, I look forward to the third and final round. I sincerely hope my opponent responds as soon as they had during round two.
Killing Baby Girls is Wrong (& by Extension, So is Abortion in General)

Someone wrote: "The titular question is, in itself a moral quandary and therefore not grounds for a factual debate." ...and yet you are (supposedly) debating it. "Though I make no claim as to the accuracy of the aforementioned, we can safely assume my opponent operates under such beliefs." No you can't. "Thus, conflating the two topics is intellectually dishonest and I ask my opponent to modify or clarify their argument going forward." I didn't conflate the two topics. Also, I am only one person, so who is this plural "their" to whom you referred? "the general word "Baby" is used." That is not a problem, though, because the victims in question are human babies. You lost the debate because you failed to provide evidence that female feticide is not morally wrong, and also failed to provide evidence that abortion in general is not morally wrong: Thanks for your time! =)
Killing Baby Girls is Wrong (& by Extension, So is Abortion in General)

The titular question is, in itself a moral quandary and therefore not grounds for a factual debate. I, as the con side shall instead argue to prove that the points provided by my opponent are invalid, inaccurate or inapplicable to support their side. First off, there is a blatant confusion between Female Feticide and Abortion in general. The former is performed for a very particular reason and has strong ties to "India and China" according to my opponent's provided document. Though I make no claim as to the accuracy of the aforementioned, we can safely assume my opponent operates under such beliefs. The latter is a medical term applying to a variety of situations globally. Thus, conflating the two topics is intellectually dishonest and I ask my opponent to modify or clarify their argument going forward. Secondly, I claim that my opponent uses manipulative language to artificially strengthen the Pro side's case. Instead of using the scientific and proper terminology that applies to abortive scenarios and Female Feticide scenarios, the general word "Baby" is used. I would like to clarify here that "Feticide" only occurs pre-birth and according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, a "Baby" can both refer to born and unborn animals. https://www.merriam-webster.com... . My claim is only strengthened by the fact that my opponent has not referred to the topic of argument as "Female Feticide", though the provided source makes use of this terminology. With this, I believe I have made a strong case proving my opponent is using manipulative language. Thirdly, I would like scholarly sources stating that pre-birth humans have "Fingerprints", "Virtues", "Flaws", "Thoughts", and "Emotions". If such sources were to be provided, I would rest my tertiary point but for the time being it shall stay. Thank you for reading my argument, I look forward toward your round two argument.
Killing Baby Girls is Wrong (& by Extension, So is Abortion in General)

IS SELECTIVE BABY-KILLING WRONG? Many babies are killed in the womb because of age bias or gender bias. Make every day International Women's Day: stop killing unborn women based on age bias and personal convenience. Protect women and girls of all ages. Babies have the same unique personal characteristics we have: Fingerprints, DNA, virtues and flaws, thoughts, pains and pleasures, emotions, and gender.
Killing Baby Girls is Wrong (& by Extension, So is Abortion in General)

To open my final argument, I would like to respond to my opponent's main concern regarding my usage of "they/them" to refer to a singular entity. According to Oxford Dictionaries: "Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it"s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn"t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It"s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing. " at . https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... I will reinforce that I am absolutely able to assume my opponent's views based on the documents provided since those documents were submitted without afternote or addendum in my opponent's first round argument. I would also like to remind the public and my opponent that the titular question states that Abortion is to be proven "wrong" as extension to Female Feticide, though the two concepts are completely separate and operate under both different definitions and circumstances. Clearly, implying that proving Female Feticide wrong will prove Abortion wrong by extension is conflating two subjects as it implies the two are relatively similar. My opponent claims this debate is "about baby girls" however "baby" encompasses both animals that are born and unborn. Since born children are not aborted, and are no longer fetuses, the word baby cannot be applied to Feticide. As an addendum, my opponent's statement that this debate is "specifically about baby girls" again shows how Abortion - a non gender specific operation - can only be proven wrong by extension of Female Feticide by conflating the two terms to at least some degree. I cannot address my opponent's response to my clarification of my position since they provided no material to argue. Neither can I address the following response much due to the same reason.
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood

Alright, let's slow down a bit. How can we trust anything my opponent has said?For example, look at how he started out: "However, everything she told you is a lie."Now le'ts look at how he ended: "P1) Child maltreatment causes violence. I agree with this premise."My opponent's constructive argument is deconstructive of itself (don't overthink that statement. I've been waiting to say that for a long time. Just let me have that).Rebuttal to the PX-41 crap:Allow me to explain what my opponent is trying to misconstrue to you guys. Perhaps I should've explained the inventor of the Cadburry Creme Egg. Gomez Addams: A genius.A perfectionist.A villain.And the protagonist.That last one means he would've made sure that this didn't actually destroy the world. Of course, PX-41 is delicious, and it's usage as a flavoring addend is actually quite popular in certain products such as: tea, all Hershey's products, caramel, and love.However, if performed right, the PX-41's psychological effects are totally void, and the only thing left is the flavor. Now you may be thinking, "Was this really is the guy who made heaven a place on earth?" I know it's unfathomable, but keep in mind that he is still a family man. He had to do something to make some income, even if he is old money. So despite the fact that he encourages his children to homocide and congratulates them for breaking their parole, there is one thing that he did for the world.And he's surprisingly hospitable to visitors.Coincidentally, he is also the answer to Belinda Carlisle's question. [1]http://www.youtube.com...So to be clear about it:Gomez Addams did not poison the world. He did include an antidote to the psychological effects of the PX-41, which is why we don't see purple people eaters running around on Easter. Unless, of course, you played against the Minnesota Vikings between the late 1960's and the late 1970's on Easter Sunday. #TIL [2] Now I hate to sound like an elementary school teacher, but let's reign it in guys.I think that's what they say.Back to the sanity of my argument, let's remember that my opponent did not provide counter-arguments to the delicious heavenness of the Creme Eggs only to their contents. Now that we know that the PX-41 is used as a flavoring agent like how dead virus cells are used in flu shots (actually that's a sort of horrible comparison to draw).So, considering that the rest of my case is uncontested now that my opponent's whole case is shut down, I believe it's time for me to stop typing and making it look like I'm smarter than I am by extending my argument length with words like the BIGWORDSI'MUSING.I'm sorry. That was a really wordy sentence. I can never forgive myself now.......Sources:[1] The video[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] Just a reminder, I am actually the prophet of Morgan Freeman.