BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Foreign-Born Citizens Should Be Allowed To Serve As President

The only thing is that how will "improving" it help our country? That's the question of this debate. On your second point, if someone was high up in their political pyramid, why would they come over to the U.S. when they can just stay in their country and improve their own country? By running for president in America, it shows that loyalty isn't their strong suit. Also, if one was already high up in their social pyramid, they would almost certainly be rich/upper class. The point remains is that you CANNOT run and win the presidency without connections and money. Therefore, the only foreigners who would be able to run for president wouldn't be so different from candidates today. The point is, allowing foreign-born citizens to run and serve for president brings no advantage. Finally, I'll concede (even though I might not agree but that would be another debate) that some characteristics of foreign governments may be beneficial to the system we have now. However, this does not mean that we have to let foreigners run for president in order to get these changes in. We adopted ideas from John Locke and Montesquieu in our constitution, yet they never held a position of power in the U.S. nor were they directly involved.
Foreign-Born Citizens Should Be Allowed To Serve As President

"It is not strange . . . to mistake change for progress." - Millard Fillmore Why fix it? Not exactly "fixing it" per se, more like "improving". Like upgrading your computer or phone for no apparent reason except that it will improve it, or make it better. Also, what if this foreign-born citizen was already high-up on the social/political pyramid? Then all that would be standing in their way would be the fact that foreign-born citizens aren't able to run for president. Last, some characteristics of other country's systems may be beneficial to American government. Who knows? Maybe there are some better-than-ours governmental systems out there? "Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." - John F. Kennedy (35th United States President)
Foreign-Born Citizens Should Be Allowed To Serve As President

I accept, however the burden of proof rests on you. First off, just because someone is ready for a change doesn't mean it should happen. If it aint broke, why fix it? Second, if a foreigner runs for president, he/she will not be exempt from the presidential campaign which revolves around money and public opinion. It would be highly unlikely in this day and age for a regular middle class citizen, from any country, to be able to successfully campaign even to get a position on the ballot. Look at the failures of 3rd parties in past years. Also, it's a person's ideas that might be beneficial, which could easily be accepted by a natural-born American citizen. Finally, a foreigner might be biased towards their home country's system (whether it be in a social, economic, or political context) and those ideas might not work as well here as they did back home considering our differing situations and historical backgrounds. While most countries today are moderate, a foreigner from lets say Iran would be favorable to a theocracy which would obviously cause much uproar in the U.S. because of the diversity ofour population as well as the laws on which this country is founded upon.
Foreign-Born Citizens Should Be Allowed To Serve As President

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." - Thomas Jefferson [inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial] The old ways must change to allow foreign-born citizens to serve as president. First of all, Americans may, in fact, be ready for change. I mean, Barak Obama got into office partly because voters wanted to see what would happen if an African-American served as president for the first time in U.S. history. We are ready for change. Additionally, many politicians these days don't seem to have much empathy towards the lower and middle class. Someone with different opinions on these sorts of things could really change the lives of thousands, even millions, of people. Lastly, a person from another place could have new, possibly better, ideas on how we could or should run our country. Ideas that have never been proposed before. Ideas that the average politician would never think of. "We need men who can dream of things that never were." - John F. Kennedy This has to change. This is no way to run a nation.
Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter

R1: Con admits my first statement was true, and provides no rebutall to it. Con makes the assumption that more people today are willing to read a Harry Potter novel. Since Con provided no evidence that proves more people are willing to read Harry Potter, his argument stands void. Con says the impact of the present generation of readers on the books reception cannot possibly be ignored. The Lord Of the Rings also had amazing book reception, so Con argument makes no sense.Con sabatoged his argument by bring in the The Hobbit in this debate. With The Hobbit, Con can no longer say that Harry Potter is meant for a broader audience, as The Hobbit is designed for that purpose only. Con uses wikipedia as a source, which is not acceptable. Con must provide another source. He says Harry Potter would have sold 50 million more copies, but gave no source of where he got the sales of the Lord of the Rings. Con cannot use my source, because he presented his own source for the total sales.Con says each book was progressively longer, so readers would not be discouraged by the length. Con assumes that readers are automatically discouraged when he or she comes across a big book. The Fellowship was 398 pages, which in my opinion is not very long. Con doesn't show how a progessively longer book is easier to read than a book that is between 300- 500 pages.R2: Con believes I "nitpicked" his arguments by saying that "about a wizard leading two young lads to fight evil" Hermione and Ron were only helping Harry defeat Voldemort. If I go by that, I can also say Sam, Pippin, Merry, Legolas, Aragorn, Gimili, and Boromir were all protagonists, as they helped Frodo destroy the ring.R3:Con says my first 2 arguments were "opinions". My first argument was about Tolkien being the orginal writer of his fantasy themed books, and how Rowling was inspired by Tolkien. There was no opinion in my argument, and I provided sources to back that claim up.Con seems to think that having opinions in this debate is wrong, even though he contridicted himself when he said Harry Potter is a better protagonist than Frodo Baggins. Not everybody will agree with you, and that simply is your own opinion if you believe that. Again, that isn't wrong, as this whole debate is based on opinions. Con provided no rebutall for my 2nd argument, but saying it was an "opinion". Just like Con said how he proved Harry Potter was the better protagonist, I proved how I thought the Villiains in LOTR were better.Con states, "We also must look to the original source material and a tangible way of measuring impact". Again, I already said all aspects of the trilogies can be used in the debate. I showed how Lord of the Ring movies were better than the Harry Potter movies, by showing the critical reception, and the number of Oscars it won. Con did not provide any rebutalls for my 2nd and 3rd argument.
Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter

To begin with my rebuttal I will defend my points and attack my opponent's. My opponent points out that my first observation is null because the instigator makes the rules. This is my first debate and I was unaware of this so I apologize for my breaching of the rules. My opponent does not mention my observation concerning substance of the text meaning he has no attacks for it. Keep this in mind as I will revisit this later C1: My opponent attacks my first contention by saying that people in the 50s used different grammar. While this is true, we cannot detract from the fact that more people TODAY are willing to read a Harry Potter novel than a LOTR novel. The impact of the present generation of readers on the books reception cannot possibly be ignored. My information concerning total copies sold comes from here. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... My opponent says that this stat is skewed due to the presence of more Harry Potter installments. However, there are 7 HP novels, and 4 LOTR novels if the Hobbit is included. (As it should be) Mathematically speaking, if Harry Potter had only half as many books (3.5, less than LOTR) it would still have sold 50 million more copies, so this argument falls flat. My opponent further claims that Harry Potter contains more total pages. I clearly stayed that each book was progressively longer, so readers would not be discouraged by the length. Additionally, when the Philosophers stone was written, the series was a fifth that of LOTR, drawing in many initial readers not persay due to the length, but many were not discouraged. C2: My opponents sole attack on my second contention is nitpicking concerning the plot of LOTR, which I can turn against him by saying that Harry Potter is not "about a wizard leading two young lads to fight evil" as 1) all three protagonists in HP were wizards/witches 2) Harry was the youngest of the three and 3) Hermione Granger was female C3: my opponent states that LOTR also contains a good moral and I concede to this rebuttal Attacking my opponents case now, I bring you back to my observation. My opponents first two points both deal with his opinions of the series. My opponent cites that in the movies the villains have "cooler" armor as one reason the pro should win. Until my opponent creates a viable reason that subjective opinions of one man should win the round, neither of his first two points can be looked to. My opponents third argument states that critical reception of the movies should determine the round. However, we cannot assume critical reception of one aspect of the franchise wins the round. We also must look to the original source material and a tangible way of measuring impact, rather than unrelated actors and directors abilities to convey such material. To summarize this round. My opponent's first two points are useless at proving LOTR is the superior franchise, and third is very sketchy at best. While I show that Harry Potter is accessible to a broader audience, and a superior protagonist. Therefore, con should be considered for victory. I stand for the opposing arguments.
Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter

I will be arguing that the Harry Potter franchise is superior to the Lord of the Rings franchise. I have two observations. To ensure proper debate of the topic, we will look to ONLY the original novels, not the movie adaptations. This ensures that the original context and meaning are kept secure. My second observation is that the better franchise is that which is proved to be the most substantial to the reader, not that which is the most fun to read or the "coolest" as these are objective. Substance is indisputable, and will serve as the basis for the voters decisions. (Ideally, as people will still only vote for their favorite franchise anyway.) I have three contentions for todays round. CONTENTION 1: THE HARRY POTTER FRANCHISE IS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO A BROADER AUDIENCE. The Harry Potter series is more user-friendly than Tolkien's series. The sheer length of the Lord of the Rings novels discourages more casual readers and non-fantasy fanatics. Each installment of the Harry Potter franchise gets progressively longer, which allows readers to pick up the first installment of the series, and progress as far as they desire, as opposed to never picking up the series to begin with. This is evidenced by the fact that 400 Million copies of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone have been sold, whereas only 150 Million of the Lord of the Rings have been sold. CONTENTION 2: HARRY POTTER IS A BETTER PROTAGONIST THAN FRODO BAGGINS Continuing with my point of appealing to a broader audience, Harry Potter is a more relatable, stronger protagonist. The narrative of Harry Potter supersedes that of a common man story, and includes a coming-of-age element that allows more relatability to the character. Harry's appeal to a broader audience makes him a superior protagonist than Frodo, as they share many of the same charcteristics, both being young men set up by the actions of their fathers to vanquish evil, both overcoming various trials, and both being supported by their friends. Harry's addition of relatability simply makes him a better character. CONTENTION 3: THE STORY OF HARRY POTTER CONTAINS A THEME, WHILE LOTR IS SIMPLY A NARRATIVE The story of Lord of the Rings is an adventure fantasy. While incredibly entertaining, it contains no moral to be taught to the audience. The persistent theme throughout the Harry Potter franchise is, coincidentally, persistence. Harry Potter teaches the moral that you can lose absolutely everything, but never give up hope. By giving the reader with something more memorable and life-changing than merely a good read, Harry Potter comes out as the superior franchise. I stand open for my opponent's points.
It is entirely reasonable to say 'America' instead of the USA.

Resolution: It is completely reasonable for someone to say America instead of the USA.Rules:i. No sneaky wordplay.ii. All FFs are immediate defeats.iii. Round 1 is for acceptance only (suck it GWL-CPA.)Online, and in numerous conversations, it's taboo to say "America" because it's actually called the USA. I will argue that it is completely reasonable and completely acceptable to say America instead.
religion is just belief

However, I find massive flaws with his logic. To start of with, his statement is only just based on personal review. He has not included any proof, any reason other than he thinks so. This lack of logic and not providing arguments makes me impossible to rebut him more than what I have done. I shall move on to my points. 1. There are many eye witness accounts of these events happening that have documented their story. 2. People were persecuted to death in the following of Jesus and God. Would any of you die for something that was false? Even if they only believed it, it would be hard for them to pass on their belief than to pass on something that was true. 3. How can religion only be belief? It is when someone knows that it is true that they follow that religion. I patiently await my opponent to reply.
Starting with Rio 2016, The Olympics should give away certificates for participation.

Illogical Statement No.1Pro stated that "we are all equal really because we are all best at the thing that matters most, and that's just being yourself. " My question is, What does this have to do with the Olympics? I, as a follower of Christ, do believe that every single person has the same amount of worth and that everyone is best at being themselves. But there's no way you can correctly claim that everyone is equal when it comes to running or swimming or any other physical activity. If I sit around my house all day and never exercise, my ability to run is not going to be equal to the ability possessed by Usain Bolt. If I dedicate my life to learning how to build the best buildings, my ability to play the guitar is not going to be equal to that of Jimi Hendrix. Even if I practice for months and months there's no way that I could physically be equal to Usain bolt. The point of the Olympics is to showcase the amazing physical ability of a select few from all over the world. Illogical Statement No.2With regards to the original topic: Pro's idea of every single participant receiving a 'good job certificate' from the Olympics is redundant. Every single participant in the Olympics already receives the title of 'Olympian' by doing the exact same thing that would get them a certificate. They participate! Illogical Statement No.2.5Pro said: "Being an Olympian does not, in fact, presuppose great athletic ability. " Yes it does! They don't just let anyone in that wants to compete. This website lists a few of the requirements- . http://trackandfield.about.com...I could go on, but I'll stop there.
Starting with Rio 2016, The Olympics should give away certificates for participation.

Having a certificate is much better than being called an Olympian. If I went to the pub and said "I'm an olympian" to all my correct friends, they'd reply with something like "Being an olympian does not, in fact, presuppose great athletic ability. For example, Beijing 2008 failure Paula Radcliffe is classified as an olympian and she came 23rd, receiving no medals after her marathon! That is absolutely rubbish!". They'd be right, too.However, if I said to them "I got a sports certificate from the Olympics", then their thoughts would be something along the lines of "If the Olympics, a great organization, feels that he is good enough to warrant a certificate, then he must possess great athletic ability unmatched by your average lazy unactive slob like me". They'd be right, too. The Olympics sports company giving a certificate certifying achievement and congratulating said sports personality is very impressive.Certificates are very impressive! As for the sport podium, I believe that no matter what somebody achieves in the fields of throwing stuff, splashing in water quickly or running in a circle quite fast, we are all equal really because we are all best at the thing that matters most, and that's just being yourself. For that reason, all athletes should sit at a big round table after their sports game because all of them are equal, but special so it needs to be celebrated. It pains me to say this, but it seems to me like Con is a bit of a mean guy who values games achievements over a person's special ability to just be themself, and that's devestatingly incorrect.Besides, who is to say who is better anyway? In this lovely PC world od ours, nobody did best or worst in a race, they just came in their own special unique place. We should celebrate diversity, not just praise one thing and look down upon another to an extent where one poor soul can cry if they don't get first place in a race (here, I'm referring to Poor old Paula Radcliffe, well-renowned Beijing 2008 failure).I'm KingDebater, and I approve of this message.Thank you.
Starting with Rio 2016, The Olympics should give away certificates for participation.

I look forward to a good debate!I will begin my argument by laying some ground work as to what distinguishes an Olympic winner from a participant.Athletes enter the Olympics as mere athletes, and exit having been placed somewhere within two new categories. These categories are: Olympian and Winner. Everyone who wins first, second or third place in an event is, of course, placed in the Winner category. According to *Olympic.org, all athletes who participate in the Olympics "will become Olympians, whether or not they win a medal." Pro believes that these participants need some sort of tangible trophy or paper to make them feel better about being participants. I believe that there is no need or reason to give these athletes anything more than the title 'Olympian.' They have spent many months training to be the very best athletes in the world and have certainly proved it. Even if you finish in 23rd place, you're still a better athlete than any normal person, you're an Olympian! Which is better: having a certificate which constantly reminds you that you came in 23rd, or having the title 'Olympian.' As for Pro's second argument that the winners podium should be replaced with a round "Participants Table." The podium is specifically for winners. If you have distinguished yourself by having one of the very best performances in your event, then you receive a medal and are recognized by being placed on the corresponding level of the podium. As mentioned above, the participants that do not win medals or time on the podium win the title of Olympian. They specifically did not meet the criteria for standing on the podium, and should not do so. The people who won should have their own time and place of recognition.Sources-* http://www.olympic.org... -quote found on page nine.
Starting with Rio 2016, The Olympics should give away certificates for participation.

Poor Beijing 2008 failure Paula Radcliffe, she is shown here crying after receiving no medals at a marathon she 'struggled' to come 23rd in (1).If only the olympics was a bit more like sports day at school, then it would all be a lot better.Perhaps if Paula Radcliffe had received a certificate for participation, then she wouldn't feel so bad about herself and maybe wouldn't even cry at all!I propose for something along the lines of a certificate that says:SPORTS CERTIFICATEThis piece of paper certifies that PAULA RADCLIF has participated in the olympics!He or She or It came 23rd!Well done, PAULA!Not only that, but I also propose that we change the shape of the Olympic podium (2) from the cruel and twisted shape that it currently is to a big round table (3), where all the participants sit round it and it's all very equal because nobody is sitting at the top. It's all fair!Thank you.Sources(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...(2) http://upload.wikimedia.org...(3) http://go.sky.com...
Playstation vs. Xbox

On the question on Why does Microsoft make consoles if the future of gaming is on PC? Because people still play on consoles. So why not appeal to the other demographic? And no Microsoft does not need to compete with Alien-ware and Xidax., these 2 companies are PC building companies, not software companies, and Microsoft gets money from these companies so that these companies can put Windows on their Products. AND while Microsoft is in the console business then they have to compete with Sony. Yes Current consoles can run games at 1080p at 60fps, but has to be set at low/medium settings compared to the PC, BUT the PC can play games at 1080p at 60fps on ultra settings easy, for the same price of a console($500) and Online for 2 years($120) and you get free online on PC, link of pcpartpicker PC that you build(which is easy) that murders any Console. And no playing online on consoles does cost money. It is called Xbox live and PlayStation PLUS. AND how does a same SPEC PC to a Console can't do what a crappy console can do? OR BETTER hardware? Yes people build PC because it is easy and cheap. And sellers don't make games cheaper because their making a killing on PC sales, which they don't. Steam and Origin and other Distribution services make it cheap because their just selling a digital key which they can make out of no where and boom its a new sale. No physical cost is involved so price not needed to be higher. Aesthetics don't really matter. If it does matter you can make a console size PC which is still better, and If you want to use any controller then PC... https://pcpartpicker.com... I tried to say on Xbox but my opponent pivoted to PC so what can I say. Thank you for reading this debate and I hope you see that Both consoles suck.