BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Microsoft and Sony shouldn't ban used games from their systems

Okay i have no idea why it said I forfeited the last round BUT whatever, all my info is here basically if Microsoft and Sony banned used games it will run companies such as Gamefly and Gamestop out of business. Yes people stick with the old systems and won't get the new one but sooner or later they will end up with the latest Generation console since that's what happened here, plus the companies stop making games for this systems after about a year or 2. To mainly close my opponent just gave up for no reason and didn't continue to defend his argument. This was a good defense and I had fun doing it, I just worry this may actually happen and sooner or later Microsoft and Sony will notice they have screwed themselves this time.
Microsoft and Sony shouldn't ban used games from their systems

I understand what you mean by the whole old games things but sooner or later you will end up getting the new system. Yes there are people that like to buy the old games but they would want something new. After about a year or two that the new systems willq be out or they will stop making new games for their past systems. I myself would die off from old systems, I barely play the original Xbox anymore and with the ps2 we just use it for DVDs. GameStop would end up getting rid of all the Xbox and ps2 games to make way for the new games and used 360 n ps3 games. Along with gamefly all those old games will end up just sitting there and they will loose customers. Are you really saying that people will forget about the new games and systems and just stick with the old systems? Everyone will sooner or later forget the old systems or not even other renting from gamefly. They will end up going to the library to rent those old games or eBay to get them for a dollar. With these new games and systems to come out. If they plan to ban those games people will stop gamefly and stop buying those games. Gamefly will only survive on the edge with the new WiiU to come out.
Microsoft and Sony shouldn't ban used games from their systems

How would Gamefly go out of business people may not get the new system or have a different system so Gamefly would be fine. Also Gamestop testes all of there used games to make sure that they work. Also they would continue to sell old games because sometimes people can't afford the newest systems. So they have old system and also kids who are like 16 and 17 like the old systems. I'm not that old and I still love the 64 the PS2 and more so I still buy old game. Also my friend only has a PS2 and gamecube and still buys games I still love the PS2 and gamecube and play with him all the time.
Microsoft and Sony shouldn't ban used games from their systems

If they decide to do this it will be the end of Gamefly. Seriously think about it. I know what you mean about old systems but there are rumors that they will do this for the new system games too. So if I went to Gamestop and bought a game for the next XBOX soon to be out in 2013??? Anyway and got home and it didn't work i would be pissed. Soon Gamestop would realize why should we sell used games if they don't work on the new systems. This would then cause Gamestop to lose over 50% of their sales since most are used games. everything would go down the drain, ebay sellers selling used games, Gamefly, other game stores that sell used games. This would just crash the gaming industry. What is the good idea behind this. People will get fed up. I sometimes like to rent a game and try it out. if this happens I will be forced to buy it and if it sucks I just need to keep it and won't be able to sell it. EA is a company that sells games with an internet password which if you don't have it you, it costs $5. Okay that is okay but still a scumbag move on their part. Bust still this is just another thing like this over again Microsoft/Sony will expect you to just buy a game and enter the code and not be able to try ti at your friends house/sell it or rent it. It's liek Computer games now on systems.
Microsoft and Sony shouldn't ban used games from their systems

I don't think that you should be allowed to play old console games on new consoles because there wouldn't be that much point in even buying the new console. It is true that they will release new games for that console only, but if you want to play the other games then set-up your old console or have it in a different room. Also for the xbox 360 they took some games from the original xbox and made it so you can play them. They made it so you can play halo 2 on the new xbox. Also another reason they make it so that you can't play old games is because sometimes they change the controller. Like with the xbox. so if they made is so that you can play old games on the new console they would have to program the new console to be able to read the old games with its new controls. It's the same way with controllers like with the Sony you can't take ps2 controllers and use them on the ps3.
Microsoft and Sony shouldn't ban used games from their systems

Yes I know that this is only a rumor but if it is true I stand for that the companies should not ban used games from being played on their systems. In this argument I will defend why they shouldn't ban used games from the newest systems yet to be released. The first round is just and introduction saying you are for or against. then in the upcoming rounds we will say why we stand for or are against it. acceptance round!!!
Toyota Corolla and the Ford Focus are the best selling cars in 2014

My opponent states that it is on me to disprove Ford's sales. Fortunately, I have no need to do this. Like I have stated before, Pro had to prove that both the Corolla and the Focus had the same sales at the top of the charts for international sales in 2014. Failing to do this fails to fulfill the BoP. This is what the logic is supposed to be. P1) For a car to tie for best selling, they must both have the most sales. P2) Corolla and Focus do not both have the most sales. C1) Corolla and Focus do not tie for best selling. One of them may be (still no proof of this), but they are not both tied for best selling.
Toyota Corolla and the Ford Focus are the best selling cars in 2014

The Focus has so many sales because, according to Ford themselves, they have sold 100,583 regular focus, 399,567 Focus electric, 516,475 focus titanium, and 602,784 Focus Eco boost. These cars model years vary, but they still are all sold in 2014 from retail stores, official Ford stores, and private car lots. Now it falls on con to disprove this. Back to you. www.Ford.com/ focus/ sales
Toyota Corolla and the Ford Focus are the best selling cars in 2014

I disagree with my opponent's statement that "I never said that the Corolla and Focus are the only best selling cars" when the Resolution is "Toyota Corolla and the Ford Focus are the Best Selling Cars in 2014." Right there, you stated it. Also seems to be a bit of a concession when stating that there could be other cars with that many sales. Doesn't matter that the Corolla and Focus are among them, they have to have the exact same number of sales, as well as be tied for first for the Resolution to be proven true. In short, for Pro to win, he must prove that both the Focus and Corolla are the best selling cars in the world in 2014. For this to be true, he must show that they both have the exact same sales, otherwise it would be one or the other. My arguments are not touched on, so they are extended. Back to Pro.
Toyota Corolla and the Ford Focus are the best selling cars in 2014

I accept, and being Con, I will attempt to prove that the Toyota Corolla and Ford Focus are not the best selling cars of 2014. For Pro to win, he must prove that both of these vehicles tie for the best selling cars in the world. First, I would like to address Pro's first source. If one would do the honor of clicking the link and spending less than 30 seconds on the site, you will find that the best selling car is not a tie, but in fact only the Corolla. Even neglecting this, the second best selling car is not the Ford Focus; the Hyundai Elantra is next on this list. Pro's first source literally disproves his claim, and undermines his argument. I would like to argue that only the Corolla is the best selling car. In my opponents first round, he states that both have 1.2 million sales, implying that they are at a tie for best-selling worldwide. All I have to do is prove that one of them has sold more, or that there is another car that is in the top two, I guess. So far, my argument rests in looking at Pro's source and looking at the top two cars in the list [1]. If I need further arguments, I will post them in a future round. Sources: [1] - http://www.forbes.com...
Does Julius Caesar have a clear protagonist and antagonist? Pro(Yes) Con(No)

RebuttalsAs the plot largely revolves around Brutus and his actions, it can be more than "argued" that he is the protagonist of Julius Caesar. In fact most experts in the field of Shakespearean agree that Brutus fits the role of "protagonist". He is even referred to explicitly as "Marcus Brutus the protagonist" in many reviews. Con states that it could be argued that Mark Antony and/or Octavius Caesar are protagonists, however, as they only really become prominent towards the conclusion of the play this cannot be the case. Brutus is the one who receives the most lines and the character who dominates the plot. Con also suggests that Cassius can be seen as the protagonist--but again, he receives much less emphasis than Brutus. And as highlighted previously, Cassius is the one who formulates the plot to kill Julius Caesar and subtly manipulates Brutus into joining his cause, which thus makes him the "antagonist". Him having Cissa place forged letters (where Brutus discovers them) is an example of this. "Though Brutus is considered "noble" and he is doing everything for the freedom of Rome, he is a man who killed his own close friend, and cannot necessarily be the protagonist of the play. Most of the play is based around the betrayal of Caesar and the manipulative manner of Mark Antony to the plebeians."Number 1 of the definitions of protagonist states: "the main character in a drama or other literacy work", so the protagonist is not only the one to show the highest moral compass but is also generally viewed as the one to feature the most. Though Brutus did betray Julius Caesar in the beginning, it's made evident that Julius Caesar was becoming increasingly arrogant and power-hungry, and this is where Brutus' susceptibility to Cassius' manipulation arises. Brutus is presented with the option of remaining completely loyal or doing (what he thinks) is best for Rome and its people. I'd point out that the second definition of protagonist offered is primarily referencing "ancient Greek" drama, therefore not applying to Shakespearean drama.(1.) http://www.shmoop.com...(2.) http://www.field-of-themes.com...
Does Julius Caesar have a clear protagonist and antagonist? Pro(Yes) Con(No)

Though it can be argued that Brutus is the protagonist of Julius Caesar, it could also be argued that Mark Antony and/or Octavius Caesar are the Protagonists. Thought they have less lines than Brutus, it can be argued that since Octavius is trying to find revenge for his fathers death. Even Cassius can be argued to be the protagonist because of the prejudice Caesar places upon him and the fact that he saved Caesar in the Tiber but is never rewarded for his bravery. My argument is that there is no CLEAR protagonist in the play Julius Caesar, which is highly evident. Though Brutus is considered "noble" and he is doing everything for the freedom of Rome, he is a man who killed his own close friend, and cannot necessarily be the protagonist of the play. Most of the play is based around the betrayal of Caesar and the manipulative manner of Mark Antony to the plebeians. In any case, according to the second definition offered by my opponent, the protagonist is "In ancient Greek drama, the first actor to engage in dialogue with the chorus, in later dramas playing the main character and some minor characters as well." Which would technically make the protagonist Flavius, which is surely not true. Through these definitions I can state that since Brutus is an adversary to Caesar, that he is an antagonist. Since Mark Antony is an adversary to Brutus, he is also an antagonist. Since Julius Caesar was an adversary towards Cassius, he is an antagonist too. This proves that there is no clear protagonist or antagonist in the play Julius Caesar.
Resolved: Everything is Debatable

The round today will discuss wether there exists anything that is not debatable. This is not to say that there is no ultimate truth, but to say that the truth can never be 100% known or proven and thus will always be questioned in its validity, meaning it is will be debated. The very fact that the resolution is an all inclusive statement that does not contradict itself, proves that all things are debatable. In other words, the statement that everything is debatable, is debatable (as we are doing now) and thus everything must be as well. To win this debate pro must simply show that there is some question or statement that is literally impossible to debate. I thank Zaradi for his participation in what I know will be a very interesting and thought provoking debate, and I pass the pen to him, thank you.
Gay Marriage

To respond to my opponent, if two people are in a marriage and love each other, why should they care who other people love? They already found their match. And about the subject of bullying, the term "gay" is very well accepted in most societies and it is only their right to marry that is questioned. Not the fact that they exist at all. If kids get treated badly because of their parents, they should warn the school and they can do something about it. This is all I have to say for this round.
Gay Marriage

My opponent stated that marriage is not always a religious act. My opponent may also add that gay marriage is not something that should be debated on by straight men and women, as it does not affect them in way. When someone says 'not always' I hear 'sometimes'. Maybe a gay couple will not want to get married religiously. But say a straight couple has gotten married, and they are against gay marriage. Allow gay marriage now, and their relationship will not be perceived in the same way. They would be linked man to wife as others would be linked man to husband or woman to wife, and their whole relationship would have a different definition. Done for the round.
Gay Marriage

I am for Gay Marriage in this debate. My opponent mentioned the religious aspect of this topic. I would like to respond to this, religious people believe that god created us all equal. This means that as long as they are made of people, Gay and Lesbian couples are the same as heterosexual ones and should not be treated differently meaning they should also have the right to marry. Second of all, I would like to add that a marriage is not a religious act unless the ceremony is held in a church. The marriage itself is only an act of law which should be permitted if two people love each other, no matter their sex. I am looking forward to my opponent's response.
Gay Marriage

I am against Gay Marriage in this debate for many reasons:1. Marriage is a union through religion. For people that know the Bible a minimum, you may have hear of the story of Adam and Eve. That's right, Adam and Eve, not Adam An Steve. So religion is against marriage of people of the same gender. As marriage is a religious matter, I believe gay marriage so not be allowed.2. Gay Marriage is linked with Gay Adoption. If a child is raised by two parents of the same gender, he can have many problems throuout life. Many people find that the term 'gay' has a negative connotation, as it is sometimes used even for insults. Kids having gay parents may result in bullying, etc.For this round, these are all the arguments i wish to put forward. I look forward to continuing this debate.
Pre-Marital Sex

Witty for putting forth this motion. While I do not share his views on this matter, I do appreciate his willingness to put his own opinions up for criticism. I will wrap up this debate by, once again, pointing out the flaws in my opponent's position. Additionally, I will give one last recap of my own argument. =====> A Critique of Witty11's Arguments <===== Contention 1: STDs A. "Having sex with only your spouse is healthier than having sex with multiple partners. " As stated at numerous other instances, this assertion relies on unfounded assumptions and a false dichotomy. Being unmarried does not guarantee that one will practice unsafe sex with multiple people. Moreover, being married does not prevent one from having sex with other partners. Just ask the Reverend Ted Haggard. Contention 2: Sex and Emotional Health The only thing that is likely to lead to mental and emotional trauma, as far as sex is concerned, is the cognitive dissonance religious people create for themselves by repressing their sexuality. Contention's 3-5: Sex, Pregnancies, and Single Family Households. All of my opponent's last three arguments are based on false assumptions that stem from his personal conceptions about the world and sexuality. Pre marital sex does not guarantee the proliferation of single parent households, and I'm baffled as to why anyone would think this. Consequently, the arguments he has presented in this section can rightfully be disregarded. They are all wholly irrelevant. =====> In Defense of Premarital Sex <====== Contention 1: Sex, in and of itself, is a non-moral activity. Unfortunately, my opponent doesn't seem to realize that the terms "morally neutral" and "non-moral" can more or less be used interchangeably. However, this point is of little relevance in the larger scheme of things. More importantly, repressing sexual impulses in the absence of reason does not equate to virtuous behavior. No discernable goodness can be produced by arbitrarily limiting sexual relationships to marriage. Therefore, it is simply pointless to say that sex is morally wrong if it is not tied to marriage. ::Conclusion:: Throughout this debate my opponent has presented no reasonable arguments that would properly uphold the resolution. As I have pointed out earlier, even if I were to grant my opponent's primary concerns, then his proposal would still be without merit. Couples that aren't legally married, or are planning to get married, would not encounter any of the fantastic problems my opponent has dreamed up. Consequently, there is no reason to think that the arbitrary boundary of marriage is a sufficient basis from which one can justifiably repress sexual impulses. Indeed, the power of the human mind is an insufficient tool to adequately prop up such an antiquated view of the world.
hillary should be in federal prison right now not running for president.

Thank you! I am flattered. I would just like to point out that you seem to have strayed a bit far from the resolution. I assume you have conceded my argument that she has not been convicted of a federal crime, so she therefore should not be in federal prison. Brilliant! It appears that this debate about the resolution originally proposed has been finished. I mean, as long as we have reached a consensus that she should not be in federal prison at the moment, it really is all done and dusted. Well, I'm afraid this will be brief once again. Your sources seem a bit shady. I mean, Breitbart and the Conservative Tribune don't really seem like unbiased sources of information, and I will admit other news organizations share the same bias against conservatives. I'm sure you would agree the only truly independent source of information regarding this investigation into Secretary Clinton is the government agency in charge of the inquiry, and that would be the FBI. I have already contended that the FBI has not revealed anything incriminating. The investigation has probed existing and deleted emails and has found no incriminating evidence thus far. And I see no response to this contention either in my opponent's rebuttal, so I presume this is conceded as well. This was a bit short! I hope there is a better resolution next time that we could really sink our teeth into. But, I'm afraid, the debate around the question of whether or not Secretary Clinton should be sitting in a federal prison cell seems to be over. Thanks all! I await my opponent's response.
hillary should be in federal prison right now not running for president.

first off I would like to say, I am so happy to have an aponent who is so well rounded in this topic, and I am looking forward to our next face off. Next I would like to say that you have not heard all the facts my good fellow, but fear not, when I am finished, you will be in compliance with my statement. I will have to agree with you when you say she has not been convicted, so no jail time, yet. But I have to ask, why do we have this woman running for President if she is under investiagation by the FBI. What if they find something incriminating right when they announce she won, then she can just wright a pardon and free herself from federal prison. People of Debate.org I present my first piece of evidence http://www.breitbart.com... Our dear little Secretary Clinton has been a very naughty girl. and I also present my second piece of evidence http://conservativetribune.com... this is my thrird piece of evidence http://www.thenationalpatriot.com... and she has done much more than this. On a lighter note I just thought this was funny and you should watch it. and ya the singing isn't too good but the lyrics lol, my friend sent this to me.
hillary should be in federal prison right now not running for president.

Hello everyone! I'm back from a bit of a hiatus, and I'd like to end it by joining this debate, arguing that Hillary Clinton should not be in federal prison. My argument is quite simple: Secretary Hillary Clinton has not been convicted of a crime that should land her in federal prison. Let's call that my primary contention (or is it a contention?). But I also have a few points I'd like to share on why I think it's implausible to claim she SHOULD be convicted, as no evidence has yet been found by the FBI to indict Secretary Clinton and undergo criminal prosecution proceedings. Let's begin. 1) Secretary Clinton has not been convicted of a federal crime. This will be brief. P1. Hillary Clinton has not been convicted of a federal crime. P2. Therefore, Hillary Clinton should not be in federal prison. The first premise is clearly airtight. Hillary Clinton has not been convicted of a federal crime by any court. Her criminal record does not show any federal crimes that have been committed on her part. I'm sure my opponent wouldn't argue that a citizen not convicted of a federal crime should serve time in federal prison... 2) The FBI has not yet found any evidence of Secretary Clinton having violated federal law. Now I move into the FBI's ongoing investigation. P1. The FBI has not found any evidence on which to indict Secretary Clinton. P2. Therefore, Secretary Clinton, as of yet, ought not to be indicted. P3. It follows that Secretary Clinton should not be in federal prison. Of course, I am not arguing that there is no cause for investigation. There are plenty of reasons to ensure no crimes were committed during Clinton's time in the State Department. I concede that usage of a private email server is irresponsible behavior for a public servant. But irresponsible behavior does not warrant criminal prosecution if there is no evidence of criminal activity. The FBI, as of yet, has not found any evidence upon which to pursue criminal indictment, so therefore, it's implausible to say the Secretary should be resting in a federal prison cell. There's simply no factual basis for that assertion. I refuse to even touch the treason argument; there's no evidence for treason, and the charges that could even possibly be leveled against Secretary Clinton do not include treason. So there are my points. There will be more, I promise! But let's be real, there is really no reason to continue debating a non-issue. Clinton has not been convicted of a federal crime. She should not be in federal prison. Simple as that. I await response.