BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US should abolish affirmative action

Pro concedes my whole case, including impacts. He loses. Even if merit is essential to freedom, I protect the freedom of more people. Just look to the weighing I present in Rd. 3: "This is the single biggest impact in the round. Hayd's value is the rights of citizens – rights that need to be held in a balance. Injustice is a fundamental violation on the freedom of individuals. If affirmative action counters that injustice, I already win. But beyond just that, basic access to economic opportunities and a life without poverty is a facilitative right: it guarantees a much larger number of freedoms, in terms of basic survival, in terms of educating your kids, putting food on the table, and in terms of being able to afford a lot more. Insofar as the third subpoint holds, I'm already preserving freedom much more than Hayd is – especially as the individuals whose freedom I'm protecting are marginalized people who have access to far less freedom than those Hayd is protecting, majority individuals who don't face this systemic discrimination. You don't even need to look at the rest of the debate to vote Con. " He also drops that economic growth due to diversity results in poverty reduction. That's another huge impact to freedom. Vote Con there as well. Pro says his standard for weighing is "quantification," when he doesn't quantify any of his impacts. He loses on the impact calculus. --Just to be thorough, I'll deal with his case. First, merit isn't a mechanism of obtaining "your own" destiny when your actions and choices don't define your merit as much as what you inherit and where and when you're born. Second, I responded to the BOP analysis -- this is Hayd's argument. It's up to him to prove that more people are unjustly denied opportunities in my world than justly. Third, this is just an assertion, that I've taken down through the debate. --Pro wants this debate to be about freedom. I uphold the freedom of far more people than he does.
The US should abolish affirmative action

I already conceded Tej’s first argument and he just extends it in R3. He then supplies research studies to quantify the impact of his diversity contention, which I concede. My CaseHere I will respond to what Tej argued under the heading “Pro’s Case.”a) I explained in R1 why merit is essential to freedom. Freedom is the ability of an individual to determine his own destiny. Therefore his actions and merit ought to be things that are judged when considering his future (e.g. college and employment applications.) b) I made this statement in response to Tej arguing that “there’s a large number of meritorious candidates who are denied opportunities because of racism and sexism” and that therefore his case would better uphold the value of merit. But in order to do this he has to prove that *more* individuals are denied these opportunities than in my side, which is why I said that. c) I concede this. d) I extend my argument that individuals ought to be judged based on their merit rather than their genetic lineage. Minorities should not be awarded benefits because they are statistically disadvantaged by past injustice, but rather should earn rewards based on their merit. That’s my last response of the debate, I will be extending next round. Thanks Tej for the debate!
Zoos do more harm than good

//This makes the help from zoos completely pointless, because the animals will most likely die in the end anyways// This statement from my opponent is clearly a shame. Like I stated earlier, zoos exist to protect the animals and make sure they don't die, in the wild or not. //The animal may be more aggressive, since they're under stress, which may lead them to attacking the visitors.// There are cages in zoos for many reasons, but to refut my opponent's statement I will narrow it down to one- Cages separate the visitor and animal, so the creature cannot attack the visitor. //There is a far greater number of people that would watch a documentary like Planet Earth in stunning HD and great video than people who want to go to the zoo!// Can my opponent state any surveys to back up this point? Now I would like to go on to my own arguments. II.Zoos nowadays are not marketed as places of entertainment - they are places of education. Most modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education - the reason that so many schools take children to zoos is to teach them about nature, the environment, endangered species, and conservation. Far from encouraging bad treatment of animals, zoos provide a direct experience of other species that will increase ecological awareness. There are certainly problems with trying to conserve endangered species in this way but it is right that we should at least try to conserve them. As long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation, education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo. Now even though this argument is short, judge, let's look at WHY zoos help the animals (summing up points) Zoos provide up close and personal meetings, let's say, with the animals (but not in a dangerous situation) Zoos emphasize on education- fuels our future generations to come For these reasons and many more, zoos do more good than harm.
Zoos do more harm than good

First I would like to state some organizations (neither proposition or opposition) that campaign on environmental issues. Greenpeace is concerned for the welfare of animals deriving from a commitment to the value of nature and the earth. Now, I would like to stress one topic especially in this debate- zoos exist to protect endangered species. One of the reasons animals are taken into captivity in zoos is because they are under threat if they were to stay in their natural habitats. I would like my opponent to state at the most three zoos that do not keep the animals well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings. Zoos CAN and DO exist without cruelty to animals, with leading sources from animals. howstuffworks. com and wikianswers. com I will state some other points in the rounds following this.
Best character in yu-gi-oh

There are some characters I like (lots in Yu-Gi-Oh! GX), but there is one in particular I like:ALEXIS RHODES Alexis is a strong female Duelist from the Obelisk Blue dormitory at Duel Academy as well as one of Jaden's closest friends. She is the only female protagonist throughout the series, but Blair Finnigan has a slight role in the end of the series as well.
Best character in yu-gi-oh

This is for the nerd & fandom event of the DDO olympics. http://www.debate.org...This debate shall be about who is the best character in media created by the yu-gi-oh franchise, including comics, the TV show and the collectible card game. Whoever is the most convincing of whether their chosen character is superior ought to be who you vote for. Rebuttal is encouraged. Rules are simple - 4 rounds, with actual debating starting in round 2. The first round is for briefly presenting the character we each choose, and for clarifying rules. What makes a character best is itself a point of contention, not something we can define. Remember, actual debate rounds start in round two.With those formalities out of the way, let me introduce my contender.SETO KAIBASeto appears throughout the original TV show as a major character and the show's main tritagonist. He also appears in Yu Gi Oh GX, "Season Zero", the first movie and as a prominent part of the card game itself.Seto owns KaibaCorp, a former military contracter who now specialise in card game technology. Aside from this, he is also invariably one of the top ranked duellists in the world, his love for the game exceeded only by his love for his little brother, Mokuba. Adopted as an orphan, Kaiba eventually founds the Duel Academy school from Yu Gi Oh GX.
Faith Healing is Effective

I'm just going to summarize the main points of the debate, since everything has already been covered in the previous round. Topic: My opponent sets out to create a topic interpretation that he cannot possibly lose: Resolved: prayer can supplant all other treatments. Obviously, no pro can win that faith healing is going to stop someone from bleeding to death. You have to understand the correct contexts for faith healing, as with any other alternative medicine. I offered two contexts where it has been proven extremely effective: recovery from a medical operation and spontaneous cancer remission. I offer a link to Discovery Magazine that shows that positive thinking and thus prayer contribute in a MAJOR way to spontaneous cancer remission. I offer a meta-study of 16 studies proving that people who come to expect better health outcomes actually achieve better health outcomes. People who pray and have faith in God, believe that God will heal them and thus achieve better health outcomes by expecting better health outcomes. So in a reasonable interpretation of the resolution: "can prayer have a positive effect on health outcomes," I have clearly proven that it has a positive effect. My opponent takes issue with my involving psychology into this debate. Here is the most important thing: faith healing is defined as "faith in God" having a healing effect. Faith healing does not assume that God miraculously cures the person, but that FAITH, meaning the psychological effects of believing in God, has a positive effect on health outcomes. The positive thinking associated with faith is central to this debate. My opponent never refutes my study, so I've proven faith, through the psychological effects it has, can have a healing effect on the body. This upholds the resolution. Lastly, remember intercessory prayer, meaning someone else praying on your behalf, is not an example of faith healing, so disproving its effects proves nothing. Having upheld a reasonable interpretation of the resolution, as opposed to an un-debatable interpretation, I urge a pro vote.
Faith Healing is Effective

I stipulate that faith healing is not a proven treatment for anything all by itself. However, coupled with sound medical science, faith healing can aid in a patient's recovery. A meta-study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal reviewed 16 different studies, over a 30 year period, on patients' attitudes after surgery. The study found that, "In each case the better a patient's expectations about how they would do after surgery or some health procedure, the better they did." http://abcnews.go.com... If a patient both believes in God and prays for a better health outcome, that patient then expects a better health outcome after surgery. 16 studies show that patients with better expectations about their health outcomes do, in fact, achieve better health outcomes. The power of positive thinking is evident in all of the medical literature. The placebo effect comes from the power of positive thinking - merely thinking that a pill will make you healthier actually does make you heathier. A study at Carnegie Melon found that people with positive thinking live longer. http://www.wisebrain.org... Stress hormones have a very negative effect on the body and thus on surgical recovery. Prayer and faith healing, by contributing to a positive attitude in the patient, has been empirically proven to be effective. Affirmed.
Faith Healing is Effective

Faith healing is a subject that has been in the news a lot lately, but there has not been any data put forth about this matter. This debate is about the merits of faith healing and ultimately how effective it is in achieving the goal of healing. Lets give it a go.Definitions: Faith Healing - Healing achieved by religious belief and prayer, rather than by medical treatment.Effective - Adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result.
Death penalty

Claiming that there shouldn't be a death penalty because these criminals will "change over time and become better people" is a terrible reason for justifying your claim. I understand that people can change over time; people can and have taken a step back to contemplate who they are and what they've done and change their immoral or immature behaviors step-by-step if they feel they need to. The most brash, immature teenager can turn into a responsible, intellectual adult. However, do you, con, think that a murder or a rapist can and will take the time to rethink their crimes and plead for forgiveness and sincerely vow to change their life for the better? Do you believe that these people can remodify who they are to be able to lead a normal life out in the public? Do you even believe these criminals deserve the opportunity to live their life, even after potentially scarring a person for life or killing a person? Do you believe that people like Dylann Roof, who clearly showed no remorse, instead showing a display of laughter and joy, for the brutal murder of many in a church simply for their race, should have not been given the death penalty, but instead therapy sessions to eventually let him walk a free man with a "reformed" and "changed" life?There are people who, sadly, cannot change their ways because they have such deep-rooted immoral beliefs. I do believe people can change their lives for the better, but I do not have any faith that these lunatics, that rightfully deserve the death penalty, can ever change their moral values and truly feel sorry for their actions. People convicted and sentenced to death are not simple one-time offenders for petty crimes like theft or drug possession. This are people who have changed peoples' lives forever. And they do not think "I want to kill him," unless they have thought about murder or any other despicable action. These people cannot be fixed, for they are forever broken. Their cogs of morality and reason were dysfunctional and rusted decades ago.
Traditional Religion isn't a plague

Actually i mean what i say the call to jihad is literally a call to war by THE RELIGION. The crusades were called by a recognized pope who by religious text is defined as communicating THE WILL OF GOD. In the westboro the a minister also one who conveys gods "will" made offensive comments stating anti gay messages. For once saying what I mean is meaning what I say with foreknowledge. Even in the definition of supplied by you Jews were persecuted for starting the plague by Catholics. resulting in violence. Also the word is commonly used as in "violence plagues the land". The title may not be literal yet is. Using the common skill of context clues and sources provided what i said was literal and specific. By deeper delving then the literal text the logic delivered passes the high standard of the Socratic Method a method of logic used by common law. I digress i restate the previous round of 2. On the bases of questioning my logic and not the actual issue which had provided sources to come up with the conclusion.
Traditional Religion isn't a plague

I'm still sticking with my own definition. You still have not made any specific let alone good arguments. The burden of proof lied on you. Guess I'll break it.Right now, we are relying solely that traditional religion is a plague. As we now know (it's wrong, but I guess I'll have to follow it) that the definition of plague that my opponent wants to use is a large number of harmful or annoying things.Now, it's time for some deep-thinking. :PI would like to point out that traditional religion does not do, in a physical manner, the things you said. The people do it. Look at this definition of harm:Harm: physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflicted. [1]Does traditional religion suddenly grow arms and attack someone physically? No. It's the people who do it. You never stated the definition of various words you wanted to use, so therefore, the first definition (mine) will be the definition of the next argument. Still waiting for you to prove that traditional religion is a contagious bacterial disease characterized by fever and delirium, typically with the formation of buboes and sometimes infection of the lungs. You need to be more specific in the future.I rest my case.[1] https://www.google.com...
Traditional Religion isn't a plague

To restate my old argument use the word plague as in definition 1 (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). The subject is inferred as society and the human species.Negative losses caused by traditional religion are the Crusades of the Catholic religion (http://books.google.com... whole book quote), The jihad (http://www.merriam-webster.com... ,look at war http://www.merriam-webster.com...) and calls to war by extremist of a traditional religion such as westboro Baptist church. These events all create oppression of one other people/people which is against peace (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) and utopia (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) a state of perfectness.
Traditional Religion isn't a plague

As you make a claim, you have the burden of proof. Here is the definition we will be relying on:Plague: a contagious bacterial disease characterized by fever and delirium, typically with the formation of buboes and sometimes infection of the lungs. [1]You need to state how Traditional Religion is a bacterial disease caused by fever, and that infects the lungs. Since the wording choice in the title reassembles that of a noun, the verb definition will not be used, whereas it would be wrong.Good luck :D [1] https://www.google.com...;
Best Language: British English V American English

this debate is all a matter of personal preference and thomas isnt pronounced tomays because there is.. wait... listen to this... it might be hard to understand...ready?... TWO WAYS of pronouncing it :0000000000 :O :o omg omg !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and.... just because our dialect is BASED off of your dialect does not mean it is bad..
Best Language: British English V American English

That there again demonstrates why American English is slacking, i provided substantial amounts of information, where as you just decided to focus on the petty aspects of language. I'm telling u, no one calls it bum bags, we say pouch. Re your defense of 'a', do you see me going around calling people thomayes instead of thomas. Anyways you sort of ruined that round, do provide logic in to why you feel American English is better, don't just say we are weird, explain ps again see comments section about bog roll. Shite is more prominent in the north east of England, we say both.
Best Language: British English V American English

yes they are bum bags... go look up "bum bag" it will briong up fanny pack. http://www.lostinthepond.com... maybe its the area you live in? i looked it up they call them bum bags. bog roll makes NO sense its a toilet ... not a bog and its called "Tom-may-Toe" because a's are pronounced that way.. sing your abc's nobody pronounces it ah-b-c-d its abcd a way of pronouncing "a" is ay british english DID come first... thats no reason as to why british english is better us; chips england; crisps us; toilet paper england; bog roll us; fanny pack england; bum bag us; sh@t england; shite us; what the hell?!??!?!?! england; BLOODY HELL!?!??!?!?! no sense
Best Language: British English V American English

Yes so here is why British English trumps American English. Diverse Language: As you may know, England has not been invaded since 1066, and our current monarchy runs from 1066. However before that, wars were common and England got invaded left, right, and centre, allowing for many cultures to develop and migrate into different communities. Examples include the French, Nordic, and Irish. Likewise English is so diverse because it is so aggressive, it steals dialects from other regions and incorporates it in to one language, eg hence why we say centre instead of center, due to the French connections. Adaptable: British English has so many subdialect/ accent variations based on geographical location, famous examples include Cockney, Posh English, and Scouse English. Accents are a win-win because it forms a sense of community, and they're entertaining to others. Original: Since British English came first, American English will always seem like a cheap knock off. In its truest form, English is a sophisticated and elite language, by shortening words, and excluding u (color eg), you come off as unsophisticated. Basically, the complex the word, the more respect you get. Infamous differences: Crisps : The snack because its crunchy, and crispy Chips: The edible meal, because its a chip of a potato. Tomato: "tom a toe" Tomato: "tom aye toe" Where is the Y in tomato???? Fanny: Uk Vagina Fanny: Us Buttock Doughnut: Meaning confectionary made from dough Donut: Meaning You so dumb Verdict: Don't say fanny at all. Ps to your comment about aeroplane, its called aero because of the aerodynamics involved, not because it flies in the air,
TV's rap battle tournament

Quentin Tarantino vs. Christopher NolanThis is Quentin Tarantino speakingHavic I've always been known for wreakingIf it's mercy or pity you're seekingWell then tough luck so just get to shriekingMy films are known for their excess gore and bloodMy rhymes will hit ya like a god damn flash floodThis is the fvcking Tarantino you're messing withNow let me take you apart, brick by brickYou make psych thrillers a lot of the timeThey've been done to death, they're way past their primeYou all know I make, violence look goodStep down little bitch, you're square and I'm hoodYou idolize Bale and that bitch Michael CaineFor those faggot motherfvckers all I have is disdainYou think you're so great cause you got a few OscarsYour time is over, into your grave time to enterPulp Fiction goin up against the Dark KnightBatman's cool but you know might makes rightWho the fvck do you think would actually winA guy who dresses like a bat or some badass hitmen?Well it's time for me to dipIt's seems I've emptied my clipThanks for the battleThough all you did was prattle.
TV's rap battle tournament

I'm up against the Coen brothers Watch while I take these chumps And shove them back inside their mother's cvnt. You're up against the monster, the original bad-a5s Deadly; I breathe fire, spray acid and spit broken glass. Don't think I didn't notice you had nothing to rhyme about son. Talkin' about your cult classics, yeah… You could only name one. Bringing pain to the plains is my first claim to fame. The man with no name set the whole West ablaze. Didn't need to say much, cause talk is cheap. Just blasted motherfvckers for crossing me in the street. I'll paint your town red and screw your wives. Then shoot down dead, while you look surprised. I played another bad-a5s; Dirty Harry Callahan. Ask if you're feeling lucky with my magnum in hand. Leave a hole in your body the size of an orange. Leave your organs spilling out like your chest has a hinge. Choke your dumb asses until your faces turn purple. I know all your secrets, like I read your journal. I defined the western anti-hero and the vigilante cop. Your reputations zero and mine stays on the top. You can call me an old codger, your lame insults don't bother- Me, because you see, I'm happy making my critically acclaimed movies. So back off son, before I blow the dust off my gun. Old man Eastwood will blow you full of holes like Unforgiven.