BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Was Vietnam an American victory.

The Paris Peace Accords The US war in Vietnam ended in 1973 with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. The accords gave the United States what it wanted, therefore there was no reason to continue the war The reunification of Viet-Nam shall be carried out step by step through peaceful means on the basis of discussions and agreements between North and South Viet-Nam, without coercion or annexation by either party, and without foreign interference." The accords gave the United States the victory. The treaty also showed the United States had no need to interfere with Vietnam again. In 1975, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam again, but South Vietnam was no longer an ally of the United States. South Vietnam was practically fighting a second war against the North Vietnamese. "Two years later the fourth Vietnam war began with a full scale North Vietnamese invasion of the south. The United States did not become involved in this conflict which meant that the United States could not have won or lost the fourth war. The war was fought exclusively between the north and south Vietnamese governments and could only have been won or lost by them." The United States fought in the third war in Vietnam. The first two wars were World War 2 and the revolution against France. This clearly proves that the United States won the war in the form of a glorious victory, it did not lose it. The statistics showed earlier backup my true argument "I believe the major reasons the Vietnam war was an American Victory is because 1. The U.S. never lost a battle. If you don't lose a battle how can you lose a war. 2. The U.S. killed over 1,000,000 soviets and injured 600,000 while the Soviets killed under 60,000 and injured 300,000." However, I believe there is no true argument on your side because the Soviets were in a hot climate, the troops were much more depressed, there were much more injured to tend to, and less alive to tend to them. Most Americans were pleased with the way the war was going they even smoked Marijuana that grew naturally on Viet-Nam
Was Vietnam an American victory.

"I believe the major reasons the Vietnam war was an American Victory is because 1. The U.S. never lost a battle. If you don't lose a battle how can you lose a war." You don't have to lose a battle to lose a war. Storm of Swords (a work of fiction by George R. R. Martin) illustrates this perfectly. Dispelling fiction, you can lose a war without losing a battle by losing popular support, running out of soldiers to fight with (ask King Pyrrhus of Epirus ), or losing enough morale that your troops basically can't fight, to name a few. Number of loses on either side did not matter, we had the numbers, and so did they. I don't believe we won every single battle of that war, but I don't have to bring that up. They beat the American troops and people psychologically. The war overall was a loss because South Vietnam merged with North Vietnam, making Vietnam completely communist. The U.S. failed their mission, and until you can prove that this is incorrect, that our goal was achieved, there is no debate.
A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay

Pro pretty much claims that he is changing the resolution because of my arguments. Changing it from "A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay" to "People should not immediately consider bronies gay. " Because the resolution of the debate cannot be changed just because Pro does not want to respond to my arguments, this will be dropped and instead made into a contention, as opposed to the resolution. So, as I've said: 1. People should not immediately consider bronies gay. Pro does not support his claim that people should not immediately consider bronies gay. All he says is that they shouldn't. He makes the argument that some people may consider him gay without him having explained more about himself if he immediately calls himself a brony. If Pro does not like this, I will pose a simple solution to this problem. This solution is that Pro, and other bronies do not immediately introduce themselves as a brony. Of everything that you could tell people, being a brony is not the most important. 2. Pro claims that "[his] point. .. is that bronies must first be proven gay in order for other people to call them gay. " I will start by cross-applying my Consideration contention that anyone is able to consider someone to be something. I can consider you to be a purple dragon, but that does not mean that I know you are. In this point, all I have to prove is that someone does not have to be gay before I can call them gay. Is this at all logical? Nope. I can go out and call anyone gay before proving that they are. You may extend my 2 contentions because Pro did not attack them, but tried to change the resolution because of them.
A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay

To start off, I am sorry I did not offer definitions. As I have stated, I am new to this and still learning. The Con is suggesting that my argument is telling people that they cannot consider bronies gay. My argument is actually stating that people should not immediately consider bronies gay. Here is the definition to immediately: without lapse of time; without delay; instantly; at once Here is the link: http://dictionary.reference.com... What I am getting at in my argument, is that most brony-haters immediately consider bronies gay without even taking the time to learn about them. For instance, lets say I joined a chat session. The people in the chat are taking turns telling about themselves, and it is eventually my turn. I tell the group right off the bat that I am a brony. Now, lets say that some of these people in the chat are brony-haters, and are immediately calling me gay. I didn't even have the time to explain anything about myself and they are already calling me gay. Many bronies know that this will happen a lot to them. Many people on the Internet and in the real world would immediately consider them gay, without a second thought. My point in my turn of this round is that bronies must first be proven gay in order for other people to call them gay. For this I ask that the voters vote in the side of the Pro, and thank you.
A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay

Because Pro offers no definitions, I will offer some myself. In this debate: Cannot will be defined as: "the negative form of can" [. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] - where can will be defined as: "to indicate that which is permitted, as by conscience or feelings"[. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] Consider will be defined as: "to come to judge or classify" [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Now, onto my case: 1. Consideration Using my definition, absolutely everyone can consider someone to be something, or to consider one thing to mean another. I considered accepting this debate, but that does not mean I had to. Essentially, to consider something is not to let it be true. A man/teenager who watches My Little Pony: FIM, can indeed be considered gay immediately. We could consider that man to be a flying purple people eater. This does not make it entirely true, but believed. 2. Ability As I've defined above, the word cannot essentially means that one is not able to do something. In the framing of this resolution we are to believe, on the Pro side, that a man/teenager who watches My Little Pony: FIM is not able to be considered gay. This is untrue. There are no rules, or laws that do not make other people less able to consider these people gay. Essentially, Pro wants us to believe that we are not able to consider these people gay, that it is not permitted, however there is no law denying us the ability to consider these people gay, and there is certainly no permit needed. Onto refuting my opponents case: 1. Bronies ! = Gay I concede that just because a man or teenager enjoys My Little Pony: FIM does not mean that he is gay.
A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic was an almost immediate Internet phenomenon, instantly winning the hearts of thousands, and angering many people who, for some reason, always hate on MLP whenever they can. Most of these people instantly call men who watch MLP gay. I argue that Bronies, (a man who watches MLP), are not always gay. Even though there may be Homosexuals who watch MLP, a brony, such as myself, cannot immediately be considered gay. I myself have had a few girlfriends, so I start this debate with the above argument. Thank you, and I am sorry if I'm not doing this right, this is my first debate.
A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay

Again, my case is essentially dropped. I conceded that Bronies are not always gay, and that's simple. However, my arguments were against the wording of the resolution. If we argue that A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, can or cannot immediately be considered gay, I am arguing that a man/teenager who watches My Little Pony: FIM can immediately be "considered" gay. This is true. We are all able to consider someone to be something. I can consider my parents to be unfair, or my teachers to be mean, but this does not mean that they are. It does not matter if they are or they are not, I am still able to consider them in such a way. Though I do not personally consider Bronies gay, other people can immediately consider them to be gay. Therefore, I have proven the resolution to be in my favor throughout this entire debate. Even if this argument is not accepted, I win on solvency because I solve for the problem of Bronies being considered gay. If they introduce themselves with more information about themselves such as "I've had 3 girlfriends in the past" before they claim they are bronies, they cannot be considered gay. I do not think Bronies are gay, so please do not vote on this debate claiming that that was my message throughout all of my arguments, because it was not, from the beginning. In the first round I stated: "I concede that just because a man or teenager enjoys My Little Pony: FIM does not mean that he is gay. " Therefore, I win on my two arguments that Pro dropped that attacked only the resolution.
A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay

For the ending of this debate, I will just do a very simple argument to end with. If you look at round two of my argument, I posted an example that happens to a lot of bronies. I posted that example just to show you people what happens to bronies when they meet a bronie-hater. I also did not change my resolution, I stayed with the same thing throughout the time, and maybe the Con was just confused because I worded it differently. The Con said that he doesn't think bronies are gay, and I respect that, but we are basically getting on the same lines of "bronies must first be proven gay" in a way. So let's have a fair voting session shall we?
A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay

Please note that my case has still been dropped. I never said that the resolution Con seemed to change his mind to was contradictory of his first one. I just said that changing the resolution in an attempt to drop my arguments in a way that would make it seem like Pro doesn't, is unfair to this debate. By changing the resolution in the second round, Con cops out of every one of my arguments that were against the resolution itself, therefore dropping them. We can see that: 1. Pro misunderstood my initial argument about definitions. 2. Pro has dropped my case for these two rounds. 3. Pro copped out of two rounds now to argue a single point that I claimed his two resolutions are contradictory (which I never did). 4. I posed a solution in the second round of this debate that solves for Pro's problem about being considered gay because he is a brony. Again, my initial arguments were not that bronies are gay. My argument was that other people are able to consider them gay.
A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay

So, the Con is saying that all of my last argument contradicts myself. Please read the definitions of should not and cannot: Should: must; ought (shouldn't is the opposite of should) not: negation, denial Link: http://dictionary.reference.com... Link: http://dictionary.reference.com... can: to be able to not: negation, denial Link: http://dictionary.reference.com... Link: http://dictionary.reference.com... Should not and can not obviously go together, they don't contradict each other. The Con is wrong because these two phrases obviously go together and you argued that my whole last argument was contradicting my statement. And my last argument was not a waste of my turn. I just wanted you to point out my contradiction.
A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay

Pro wastes his round only attacking my position on him changing the resolution. "1 To start off, I am sorry I did not offer definitions. As I have stated, I am new to this and still learning. 2 The Con is suggesting that my argument is telling people that they cannot consider bronies gay. My argument is 3 actually stating that people should not immediately consider bronies gay. Here is the definition to immediately: 4 without lapse of time; without delay; instantly; at once 5 Here is the link: . http://dictionary.reference.com...... 6 What I am getting at in my argument, is that most brony-haters immediately consider bronies gay without even taking 7 the time to learn about them. For instance, lets say I joined a chat session. The people in the chat are taking turns 8 telling about themselves, and it is eventually my turn. I tell the group right off the bat that I am a brony. Now, lets say 9 that some of these people in the chat are brony-haters, and are immediately calling me gay. I didn't even have the 10 time to explain anything about myself and they are already calling me gay. 11 Many bronies know that this will happen a lot to them. Many people on the Internet and in the real world would 12 immediately consider them gay, without a second thought. 13 My point in my turn of this round is that bronies must first be proven gay in order for other people to call them gay. 14 For this I ask that the voters vote in the side of the Pro, and thank you. " Pro asks for line numbers, here they are. Pro essentially changes the resolution from "A Man/Teenager Who Watches My Little Pony: FIM, cannot immediately be considered gay" (seen in the resolution, and paraphrased in line 2) to "people should not immediately consider bronies gay" (line 3). Changing the resolution is dropping my arguments, as I said. I do not have to debate the new side that Pro takes on, but the original one. And by essentially dropping my entire case from the last round, Pro forfeits this one by only asking me about line numbers and to explain my arguments. Extend all of my previous arguments to this round. Voting issues as of now: *Con dropped my entire case. *Con forfeited this round by asking a question that could have been asked in a real rebuttal or in the comments section. *I have proven the resolution to be in my favor. NOTE: I am not saying that people who watch My Little Pony are gay, I am saying that people are able to consider them gay. Again, this does NOT mean that I believe they are gay.
Anarcho-Capitalism

The full resolution will be: "Anarcho-Capitalism as a social and economic form of social organization is justified, given the homesteading principle. DefinitionsAnarcho-Capitalism holds two propositions to be true. (A)the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and (B)a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible. . http://www.ozarkia.net...Justified:To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Government will be defined as a monopolist on arbitration, law and defense(and in some cases: morality, industry and property. Homesteading principle: the concept that one can gain ownership of a natural thing that currently has no owner by using it or building something out of it. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Rules(1) Forfeit will result in loss of the conduct vote. (2) Drops will count as concessions. (3) Definitions provided are necessarily accepted with acceptance of this challenge. (4) No abusive or semantical arguments will be allowed. Burden of proof The burden of proof will be shared. Both debaters must bring arguments of their own and refute the opposing argument in order to win. ArgumentationR1: Acceptance, definitions, rules and clarifications. R2: Opening arguments. R3: Furthering arguments, rebuttals. R4: Closing arguments.
Slavery was the primary reason the South seceded

I am presuming that your topic, "Slavery was the primary reason the South Seceded" is your stance. And only upon further reading in first round explanation did I read yet another statement "The South did secede in order to protect their peculiar institution." Another statement very generalized in the fundamental core of succession of the Union (as per the Confederate labeling of our Federal government). First and foremost, what might have been a better debate topic: Did the South secede due to slavery as their primary reason? Citing of course, as you did in your first round, as the reason why was due to their peculiar institution. Let us not confuse peculiar institution: Is the act of slave ownership as property among white land owners the institution you speak of or an institution designed to separate from the 'Union' on political, economic, and values held against class-ism of the North? When you don't define the terms of the side you hold the discussion for, how can one actually debate? When you generalize and use an over-arching explanation in one sentence, and oddly describe it so openly that someone is unable to even oppose your idea as a whole, how can this be a debate? I have plenty to share on the topic and willing to do so, but until you clarify the points in which brings you to the position you have, since it is so generalized and leaves me a bit confused to the use of "institution" in your one sentence I await your response. In short, I am aware slavery was involved in the secession of the south, but the primary reason has a list longer than one to two paragraphs of round by round debates. Academically giving the primary reason of the south's secession is like asking How do you jump rope? And someone says JUMP. Respectfully, James
Overweight people should be made to pay their fair share on ‘planes.

Let's begin. First, you can disregard the argument about blubber overflowing into other people's seats. While it may be an inconvenience for the people in the other seats, it doesn't affect the cost that the airline spends on fuel or anything else. In fact, it is totally unrelated to economics. Making them pay extra because of a reason like this is basically fining people for being fat. If you accept that reasoning, we should be fining all people who are not perfectly healthy, whether it is in the realm of control or not, seeing as how it is not always within the obese individual's realm of control. Second, you can disregard my opponent's talk about obese people having no shame, dignity, or self-respect, as this does not actually prove anything about what they should pay for airline tickets. Now, here's why you can't accept his other argument. First off, he's saying that fat people are "subsidized" by the other passengers. But this isn't true. People still only pay for THEIR OWN TICKET. They pay for themselves, and no one else. No customer is picking up the slack for fat people. Second, since no customer is picking up the slack for fat people, it is ultimately the airline that is picking up the small amount of slack created by the extra weight. They're the ones paying for the fuel. Since it's their fuel, they have the right to use it any way they see fit. If the want to charge all passengers equally, it is their right. And, this is highly recommended, as being discriminatory to fat people in such a way would be a huge capitalistic mistake. But, either way, the decision remains ultimately to the airline. It shouldn't be one way or the other, it's just a personal preference for the airline.
Overweight people should be made to pay their fair share on ‘planes.

The cost of an airline ticket should reflect the total weight of the passenger and luggage together, as this directly affects how much fuel the aircraft uses. Fat people should not expect normal people to subsidise them. If I have excess baggage, I don't organise a whip-round amongst my fellow passengers to cover the extra cost. To add insult to injury, once on the ‘plane, many obese people seem to think it is socially acceptable to invade other passengers' personal space by allowing their blubber to overflow onto their neighbour's seat. These people have no shame, no dignity, no self-respect – if they did, they wouldn't be so fat, or at least they wouldn't go out in public.
Overweight people should be made to pay their fair share on ‘planes.

Thank you for responding so eloquently to my airline-related assertions! Before I reply to your comments, however, I would just like to make it clear that I am aware that some overweight people may be sensitive about their body image and could, therefore, take exception to the (deliberately) un-PC language in my introductory argument. I should like to explain that it wasn't my intention to offend, merely to provoke a lively debate. Furthermore, although most overweight people are the way they are because they consume more calories than they expend, I realise that there are some medical conditions that can affect weight and special dispensation should be made for aeroplane passengers who have a letter from their doctor stating that they are overweight for that reason. You countered my argument that fat people should pay more by stating their weight "doesn't affect the cost that the airline spends on fuel or anything else. In fact, it is totally unrelated to economics." I'm afraid I have to contradict you. As of September 2007, fuel made up 27 percent of operating expenses for U.S. airlines, according to the latest data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and airlines will go to extraordinary lengths to reduce weight. For example, last year, American Airlines replaced its silverware on business and first class with another set that was made from a lighter metal. In short, the heavier the aircraft, the more fuel it burns. The cost of this fuel has to paid, ultimately, by the passengers, but the financial burden is not divided according to use, but evenly across all passengers. You continued: "being discriminatory to fat people…would be a huge capitalistic mistake. I don't believe asking people to pay their own way is unreasonable. It certainly cannot be described as discriminatory. For example, if you go out for a meal with a group of friends, sometimes it is easier to divide the cost of the bill equally between everybody. However, this can cause bad feeling if most people just have fired chicken or hamburgers with a cola but one diner orders roast foie gras, crystallised seaweed and oyster vinaigrette for starters, followed by civet of venison, celeriac, marron glace and sauce poivrade with pearl barley for the main course and bavarois of lychee and mango, blackcurrant sorbet and green peppercorn jelly for desert, all washed down with bottle of Dom Perignon Brut 1966! However, you are right to say "the decision remains ultimately to the airline". Southwest Airlines considered including the weight of the passenger in the cost of the ticket but dropped the idea due to fierce opposition from overweight people. Perhaps if people of normal weight were as vocal as the fat lobby, the average passenger would get a better deal.