BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the united states annex Canada

There are more harms that come of the annexation of Canada then there is good.1) Firstly, annexation of Canada will not prove easily. Canada has not shown any signs of wanting to be annexed, and there will be opposition to the new leadership of Canada.2) Secondly, there are rules against this. The Monroe Doctrine specifically bans this by stating that no country shall take control of Eastern land, which includes Canada.3) Annexing Texas will provoke hostility between the US and other countries. The UN will protest, and the members of the UN as well. 4) The US has no need to do so, because we already have many benefits with trading with Canada.Equality2447's first argument is invalid because foreign countries would be mad at the US, instead of more happy with it. This leads to dissatisfaction between the US and other countries. Equality2447's second argument is invalid because there would be land to develop and manage. The costs of the next global war would put us into debt and would not let us use Canada to the best of our ability.Equality2447's 3rd argument is true, but tax is not an important enough reason to provoke global war.Equality2447's 4th argument is invalid because America is a combination of many cultures already. There is an easier method of getting these cultures, which is immigration.Equality2447's last argument is true, but we wouldn't have the money needed to use that to the best of our advantage. I thank Equality2447 for the topic and await his response.
Should the united states annex Canada

We Americans have always had a philosophy of expanding our territory and influence, and there is no concrete evidence on why we should cease to grow as a nation. The 13 provinces of Canada and 50 American states could be mutually to each other if we served In a union together: 1) Our influence as a union would expanded signigantly (we would more easily have our way in foriegn affairs) 2) taxes could be lowered with added population of the united states 3) buisness would be promoted because there would be no tax for exportation to canada or from Canada to the U.S. 4) we would be exposed to a abundance of new cultures 5) we would double our nations land mass and reasources For these reasons I endorse the resolve that the we the United States should annex Canada
Should the united states annex Canada

In this round I intended to rebuild and reinforce my contentions, and I thank joebob4547 for his opposition. 1) A recent poll showed that a growing number (20%, higher in quebec) of Canadians and a growing 40% of Americans support American annexation of Canada, also since 1980 the Unionist party of Canada (a major Canadian political party) supports American annexation. Quebec the easily most developed part of Canada and Saskatchewan eagerly supported American annexation because of their disdain for the Canadian goverment and appreciation for the American philosphy. 2) The Monroe doctrine prohibits European countries recolonizing the western world but does not prohibit the United states from acquiring territory. If the Monroe doctrine did prohibit the United States from acquiring territory we would not of been able to acquire the Oregon territory, the Mexican cession, or the republic of Texas. So therefore I discredit the idea that the Monroe doctrine prohibits the annexation of Canada. 3) I'm confused on your oppsiton to my third contention because Texas was annexed about 100 years before the Un was even formed 4) Wouldn't it be more beneficial for everyone to work as a collective union instead of trading allies 5) It dosn't matter if the goverment dose not have enough money to harness the newly acquired Canadian resources, both countries are capitalist countries in wich citizens buy and harness resources not the goverment
Good pitching is better than Good hitting

Okay, I'd like to point out that my opponent is looking at this debate from the wrong angle. Sure, while his points he brings up carry some validity to them, it's not going to be beneficial to either of us if all we do is spout out random baseball statistics like we're Babe Ruth with ADHD. There's always going to be instances in baseball history where the pitching was the defining moment in a game, or where the hitting was the defining moment in the game. To really understand which is better, we need to look at things from a theoretical level. This is where my arguments are going to be far better and far more important than my opponent's.Also, in order to achieve fairness in debating it, we must assume that the team in question were to focus on solely pitching or solely on hitting, as arguing for the possession of both is highly unfair, as it skews ground in favor of one person over the other.On a theoretical level, good hitting is far superior a thing to have than good pitching. It's as simple as this: in order to win the game, you need more runs than your opponent. In order to get runs, you have to hit the ball well enough to get people around all four bases. If you have excellent pitching but poor hitting, sure your games will be low scoring, but you're going to lose the majority of them because your ability to score will be vastly reduced. Pitchers tire, throwing 80-100+ balls as hard and as accurately as you can is tiring. The more you tire, the more prone to mistakes you are, mistakes that could cost your team runs or the game. Hitters, however, tire much slower than pitchers do. On a rough average, a batter would only, realistically, have to swing a bat three or four times an at bat, and only have a few at-bats in a 9 inning game. This means that they will tire far less quickly, if at all, where as pitchers are going to eventually tire to the point that they will make a mistake, and a hitter will capitalize on that mistake. Replacing pitchers will only get you so far, but then that pitcher will eventually tire as well, and then you'll have to replace him, and then the next pitcher will eventually tire, and you'll have to replace him. Even in a 9 inning game, you could realistically go through four or five pitchers. That's plenty of tired balls being thrown for hitters to get good contact on and really drive deep for extra bases or a homerun.So, if a hypothetical team had to choose a pure hitting team or a pure pitching team, the hitting team would be a far better choice, because it would lead to them being able to score more points, and thus win more games.
Good pitching is better than Good hitting

Ok here I go Alex Rodriguez when he was with the Texas Rangers had 1 of if not the best season of his carrer but in that year 2002 the Rangers bullpen was terrible & they were actually in last place. In that same year the Yankees had 1 of the strongest starting rotation in that season despite getting eliminated in the 1st round of the postseason. They really had 5 aces that season. 2001 World Series randy Johnson pithced like he was in a league of his own he kept the Yankees from scoring & only gave up 2 runs in that whole World Series. Him & Curt Schilling were so dominate that they shared the World Series M.V.P Trophy. The Toronto Blue Jays have had some off the best offense in years but have hardly ever made the playoffs because of their lack of pitching.
Good pitching is better than Good hitting

See? Babe Ruth with ADHD. Just flinging stats out everywhere.My opponent drops the argument that we need to be basing this debate off of a hypothetical situation, and not in the real world. While there are instances of pitching being everything for a game, there are also instances of hitting being everything in a game. These two cancel each other out, and we get no where. Thus, we have to base this debate in the hypothetical. My opponent never does that. This can, and should, be a reason to vote con.Moreover, he drops the entirety of my case, proving why hitting is hypothetically, as the debate demands to be able to be determined at all, hitting is much more important to have than pitching. Because I'm doing this, it's an easy vote for the con.As I'm a little confused as to what to post here, as none of my arguments were answered, his case doesn't really prove anything in the way that the resolution demands, and I can't make any new arguments this round, I will go ahead and wrap up here and give voters for why I'm winning.1. His case does not apply to the hypothetical, as the resolution demands. Thus, the entirety of his arguments don't apply to the debate.2. I'm the only person actually talking about the hypothetical, meaning my case is the only one left inherently standing at the end of the day. This is a reason to negate.3. He really made no attempt to argue against hte points I brought up in my case, effectively dropping the entire thing. Because my case went entirely dropped, you can negate here.This might've been one of my shortest final rounds that I actually argued.
Good pitching is better than Good hitting

What my opponent failed to realize is that teams also like the Mets & O's have had great offense. The O's have Vladimar Guerruo & Adam Reynolds They did well hitting wise but fail to make the playoffs consitantly. Also the Mets have Carlos Delgado Carlos Beltran, David wright & Jose Reyes each of them with they're respective careers have hit very well but have only made the playoffs once since 00 & that was 06. The Chicago White Sox in 05 did not have a great offense in fact most of their offense were mediocore but their pitching was great that they ended up winning the World Series that year. The Yankees( my team) in 05 almost missed the playoffs because of lack of pitching but were able to make because of 2 pitchers named Aaron small & Shawn Chacon. Irvin Santana shut down the Yankees in Game 5 for the Angels to win that game which tell you something. 06 the Detroit tigers starting rotation was great in 06 against the Yankees & went to go the World Series (despite not winning it) they also were able to beat us when we had runners in scoring position & were able to win game 5. Mariano Rivera has 1 of the greatest eras in baseball & has shut down several of other teams & is the league leader in all time saves & when throughout that whole time the Yankees have made the playoffs 16/17 times during that stretch. So that has to tell you something. Pitching wins games. Rivera was 1 of if not the biggest reason why the Yankees were successful. Also the Yankees in 03 our Bullpen was so good that we actually made the World Series ( despite losing the W.S). Also our starting rotation was great that year also. We didn't have big Home run hitters that year either & neither did our opponents the Flordia Marlins but they were able to win the World Series because of guys like Josh Beckett. The statistics are right there you guys can search it up if you want to.
any and all profanity on the radio or television should be legal.

"So what is the benefit of it being legal?" Well, what's the benefit of keeping it illegal. "If it was legal it risks kids being exposed to profanity" And, what exactly is so bad about that. "And as for another case, what if it was a kids network that has a contract not to do profanity?" Then we should handle it like any other contract. if they break a contract, they got to settle it in court. "The first amendment is not God's words so why can't it be changed if there is a good reason?" But, it hasn't been changed. So, therefore what they are doing is unconstitutional. "I agree. But in a case where a kids channel that has profanity, why should it be legal? You have the BOP to prove this." Proof? You don't need a reason for making something legal. Rather, you need a reason for making something illegal. I'm afraid you have the BOP in this debate. "because the fact is, society thinks it is bad." That is irrelevant. As laws should be based on the damage done, and not social opinions. Profanity does no real harm to anyone and people can always switch the channel or turn off the radio if they don't like what they hear. "Another Opinion" Well, is there any evidence to suggest otherwise. " By that logic if the child saw murder once should they see it again?" Witnessing murder has proven phsycological effects on children(and adults for that matter.). Profanity, on the other hand, has zero evidence for any phsycological trauma. " there are age censoring for a reason." And, what would that reason be? " Unestablished and unproven point." True, there's no way I can prove that, but from my own experiences I tend to notice this trend.
any and all profanity on the radio or television should be legal.

"If such a situation were to occur, then the network will receive a bad reputation, and parents will never let their kids watch it again." So what is the benefit of it being legal? If it was legal it risks kids being exposed to profanity. And as for another case, what if it was a kids that has a contract not do profanity? Many channels like this exist. Should profanity be legal then. 1. Freedom of Expression My opponent uses the first amendment argument which is completely flawed. The first amendment is not G-d's words so why can't it be changed if there is a good reason? "Sure you wouldn't want your children to see racist propaganda, but your going to have to deal with it." I agree. But in a case where a kids channel that has profanity, why should it be legal? You have the BOP to prove this. 2. Most curse words shouldn't be even considered bad. This is a complete opinion and a separate debate. To sum it up my opponent mentions how curse words aren't bad but this is completely irrelevant because the fact is, society thinks it is bad. 3. Curse words have no effect on children Another opinion. "Chances are they have already heard whatever curse word might be on the "clean channels"." So what? By that logic if the child saw murder once should they see it again? "They will hear them one day." Again it doesn't matter. If the child is going to have "the talk" when they are older why don't they have it right away? My point is, there are age censoring for a reason. "On top of that, children who live in a profane environment usually become emotionally stronger adults." Unestablished and unproven point.
any and all profanity on the radio or television should be legal.

.. " Let's say a kids channel that is guaranteed to be a clean channel and all of a sudden profanity appears. Can you give me a logical explanation why this should be legal and why they should not be fined. "If such a situation were to occur, then the network will receive a bad reputation, and parents will never let their kids watch it again. I hope this wasn't your best argument. if so, let me give you the reasons why all profanity should be legal.1. Freedom of Expression Under the 1st amendment of the constitution, you have a to expression even if it is offensive. For Example, the Westboro Baptist church can hang up sign and protest. Even though children are likely to see those signs. Same goes for the KKK and the Neo-Nazis. Sure you wouldn't want your children to see racist propaganda, but your going to have to deal with it.2. Most curse words shouldn't even be considered bad. We live in the 21st century, so my question is. .. Why are we still offended by silly little words? Who exactly said they were bad? And, why are they considered bad? Most modern curse words have clean words with same meaning. For example, why can I say poop and not sh*t? Why can I say penis and not c*ck? Why can a say vagina and not c*nt? Why can I say fornicate and not f*ck. the words all have the same meaning, but one of them for some reason is a taboo. I think the future generations will laugh at us for being so stupid! 3. Curse words have no effect on children. What negative effect exactly does hearing curse words have on children? The answer is none what so ever. Most children get exposed to curse words as early as the age of 5. Chances are they have already heard whatever curse word might be on the "clean channels". And, if not. They will hear them one day. On top of that, children who live in a profane environment usually become emotionally stronger adults. And, this is why I believe any and all curse words should be allowed. I'll be awaiting your next argument Con.
any and all profanity on the radio or television should be legal.

Good Luck! I'll try to be brief. My opponent has made it clear that "ANY and ALL profanity should be legal." Let's say a kids channel that is guaranteed to be a clean channel and all of a sudden profanity appears. Can you give me a logical explanation why this should be legal and why they should not be fined. Bare in mind that I do not need to argue that profanity in general should be allowed but rather that there is at least one example of profanity that shouldn't be legal and I win.
Fox News is Biased

Now i would like to remark on two points my opponent has made, and I quote: "Lest my opponent can prove otherwise with a preponderance of evidence, I would say that it is impossible for Fox to be any worse than any other locally or nationally syndicated news outlet in the world. Moreover, in places where the media is more overtly controlled by the government, it is clear that stations like Fox are far less biased comparatively simply by virtue of the society under which they operate. " "The second portion, however, is also problematic. In order for Fox to be truly and unadulteratedly biased, it must prevent its viewers access to objective consideration of an issue or situation. To label a media outlet as having this much power scapegoats the laziness of the American public on a news station that exists primarily to earn ratings, and robs citizens of their agency and obligation to seek out truth. Fox, nor CNN, nor the Washington Post, nor the New York Times, nor any other media outlet prevents any citizen from objectively assessing the world around them. " Point one: While it is true that Fox News is significantly less bias than state-run media in countries such as N. Korea and Iran, I would argue that it is an unfair comparison because these state-run media outlets were originally institutionalized as a propaganda machine, who's primary objective is to serve the agenda of the government. The media in America has constitutional and statutory protections to allow it to be as objective as possible, now when compared to other news agencies within the these parameters its bias becomes blatantly obvious. Now the reason that i say that the Fox News bias would surpass other news agencies bias is the fact that their bias prevents the viewers from getting actual facts and news, this is made evident with the poll i cite in my next point. Point 2: My opponent has made the mistake of assuming that the bias of Fox New doesn't dilute their ability to separate fact from bias, but this is in fact untrue. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted from august 15 - 18, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly . http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com.... Now the problem with this is that the bill HR 3200 (health care reform bill) has none of those provisions within it, you can read it for yourself here: . http://thomas.loc.gov.... Though this poll only proves that Fox News viewers are uninformed when it comes to the health care debate, I would argue that this represents a larger pattern of misinformation and bias exhibited by Fox News.
Basketball Phenom Youtube Debate

. http://www.youtube.com... I present to you: Jay Sean! :) The context of this debate: who could be a phenomenal basketball player Basically, whoever has a greater potential wins! This eleven year old child has more potential than that 7th grader my opponent is attempting to promote. It is apparent throughout my opponent's video depiction, Jashaun is of a smaller stature than all the other players. He has less potential than Jay Sean to exhibit a higher growth rate. The one whom I seek to glorify is of a much younger age and has more skill relative to his age. Clearly, the younger version has more potential. There is no competition. *PS* My video is cooler. :)
obama

To start off, I will agree on the best and worst, but under Obama the national debt has increased about 8.75 trillion dollars in 5yrs! Under Bush it was just alittle over 6 in 8yrs! Next under Bush we walked into two wars, and under Obama we ended two wars but is on the edge of WWIII. Civil rights will be my next topic with the majority of the votes came from the south or African American dominate areas when the voting should be based on "agenda " the pres did before, not racial features! The reas.onhe is a dumbass which actually hes bright because he went to Harvard its just how he went about his actions. Obamacare is truincy against life because part of it talks about going against morality and doing abortion which is murder on every level no acceptions! Next is its not affordable unless ur Morgan freeman and is 76 and makes millions anotherwards the upper class and high middle class. Now I have questions. 1. How would u create jobs if u were obama? 2. How would ur future actions counteract past ones such as passing obamacare and doubling the debt? I basically see impeachment becuz he overall has simply failed to do his job and hasn't tried to fix instead he legalizes drugs so he smoke in his office and be a bum that he is!
obama

While I don't agree with everything Obama has done during his time in office, he's not been the worst president of all time. With that said he hasn't been the best president of all time either. While you didn't make the topic of debate entirely clear, your opening "argument" does indeed. Please point out examples that puts Obama in a place to be impeached, why he should have never been elected in the first place, how he is a "dumbass," and how he is destroying the United States.
agnostic is the only true position on non sensical claims

Summarising this debate. I have defined the terms and demonstrated that non-sensical claims are to be treated by rejection and not suspension of belief, because by nature they are meaningless and cannot be true. My opponent has failed to challenge these points and additionally has claimed that truth is only a matter of past events. This is a casual and equivocal use of language and is illogical. It is refuted by a simple thought experiment in that if one attempts to say "a future married bachelor exists", one has created an impossible scenario, it has no meaning and is therefore untrue. In addition my opponent thinks that he can use the example of a 'guessing game' to illustrate why one must suspend judgement. This is a of course a false and deeply flawed analogy. If I am holding some fingers behind my back and ask you to guess, you can ascertain the truth of the claim that i am holding fingers behind my back. There is nothing non sensical here, sense data is available and verifiable and given my nature it is reasonable to assume I have fingers. There is only the problem of a hidden value, which is a problem at every level of existence from the quantum world (Bohmian mechanics) to the universe (the cosmological constant in relativity). So if my opponent wanted to debate this, his topic should have been "agnosticism is the only true position on the subject of hidden values". In short there is no case to answer. Pro has failed to meet a BoP for his debate topic and it is clearly illogical to suspend disbelief for nonsensical claims.
agnostic is the only true position on non sensical claims

Thank you for your response. Truth about facts can only refer to past events. It is true that dinosaurs existed for example. However truth itself is not limited to the past. I am not agnostic as to the existence of a 'future married batchelor'. It is already true that now and forever, there will never be such an entity. The same is true for a god and any other meaningless non-sensical concept. So unless you can overturn aristotelean logic, or redefine terms, then you have to concede that non-sense is not a matter of suspension of beleif but rejection of the meaningless.