BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Give a speech

This will be competition to prove a point meaning that the winner will be determined NOT by who proves the other wrong, but who better proves their point through logic and reasoning. Both sides do not have to talk about the same topic, but it is highly suggested Rules- 1) Not evidence or outside examples. the only exceptions would be scenarios that Just about anybody could relate to (EX- going to a restaurant, or riding in a car) 2) No Clash! do not attack your opponents points; only build your own. the point of this debate is who may prove their point the best. even if both sides use the same topic, and take opposing stances, your arguments cannot have anything to do with the opponent's arguments (unless by chance) 3)Keep it clean. if the example or logic is not appropriate for a grade school kid, you can't use it. that does not mean however you cannot use logic above that level, it just means it would have to be appropriate. 4) you may only argue a maximum of 3 Points. 5) topics must be open ended and slightly vague Structure- Round 1 is for Rule Clarification and Greetings Round 2 is for Constructive Arguments -Max of three points, structure this speech like this Speech Topic (Mandatory) Opening statements (Optional) Point 1 Point 2 (Optional) Point 3 (Optional) Closing statements (optional) Round 3 is for Argument Extensions, and Clarifications -Same structure as prior, but you may make NO New arguments. this speech to to clarify earlier arguments, and extend your prior made points. Optional- Clarifications Mandatory- Extensions Round 4 is for closing arguments (must be in the same line of thought as the first two speeches, but you can make final arguments here that aren't linear to the first couple of points) Here's to a fund "debate" !
Evolutionary change will best resolve the issues of abortion, welfare, and social security in the U.

William Buckley defined conservatism as "the doctrine of evolutionary change." By that definition, one could want a radical outcome, but believe it should achieved in a conservative way, step-by-step. In this debate we consider three specific issues that the American electorate must resolve. As Pro, I will advocate the evolutionary approach to resolving the issue. My opponent will advocate a specific solution to each problem and argue that immediate adoption of his approach is better than the evolutionary approach. "Radical" in this debate means immediate imposition of the advocated changes.The issues to be discussed are:1. Abortion. The issue is what laws should govern abortion.2. Welfare. The issue is the determination of public policy governing aid to the financially needy.3. Social Security. The issue is what changes, if any, should be made in the current Social Security laws.Most of the DDO debates on public policy have to do with what should ultimately be done. This debate is more about how policy goals should be achieved, rather than the just the outcome. The resolution is affirmed if, overall, evolutionary approaches are determined to be better.Thanks to my opponent for his contributions in hammering out the resolution. I think it's a good one.Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.This debate is in round one of Spinko's Elo Tourney II. http://www.debate.org... updated http://www.debate.org...In this debate I will number references sequential from the start of the debate. This allows citing a reference in a previous round by just giving the number of the reference without also giving the round number. Con is not obliged to use my numbering system.RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
Schools should have the power to pat, search, or drug test any student at any random time.

I would like to point out that ALL my opponents points are wrong because of one thing: Comparison! When discussing why or why not something should happen in a school environment you have to bring into consideration what would happen if you got in that same situation as an adult. All the things you pointed out can/have/and will happen in situations other than with students. Meaning that you are just pointing out things wrong with privacy in general rather than privacy in school. Your rebuttals also had nothing to do with my statements. You breifly touched my statements and failed to give any significance why your statement is more reliable or true than yours.
Schools should have the power to pat, search, or drug test any student at any random time.

Firstly, in a school environment privacy is only limited to: Bodily privacy (Private parts) and Mental and Emotional privacy (Do not have to answer questions nor do you have to support any religion or group) That's it! Embarrassment and Singling out are worthless because embarrassment happens even when an adult gets searched and it is just a feeling of the person, it will not effect the search or test in anyway. Race is not applicable because there will always be racial profiling whether it is in schools, with it without a permit, or even with a 7 yr old boy or a 27 yr old man. If the teacher feels that person should be searches they get searched. It shouldn't matter of their race.
Privatize National Roadways

Privatizing all the roads most certainly wont lead to the solution to traffic problems. Businesses care about making money first, second, and third, and everything else is just a side project. Building roads is monstrously expensive and they arent money makers either, so there would be very little incentive for companies to build roads to where they are actually needed where instead companies would just sit on any profit they do manage to scrape together. If you think building roads is costly, repairing them is even more costly, so any roads that companies do ley down or put in charge of will quickly fall into neglect since again, roads arent money makers. The only way you can earn money from roads is by charging people to use them, and youd have to charge people a sh*t load for it to eventually become profitable, which will only sting the lower and middle classes. Privatizing roads is just about the stupidest thing a nation could do.
Privatize National Roadways

The United States Government should allow for privitization of all federal roadways. Privitization refers to the private buisness sector run by individuals or groups. The federal department of transportation will oversee this venture. A. this will include repair work on existing roads to meet federal standards of saftey. B. This will also include the building of new roads as mandated by the department of transportation to emiliminat etraffic problems.
Privatize National Roadways

"Consider the idea of market competition and the amount you already pay in taxes for roads."There is no feasible way for market competition in road construction and use though because its not something you can simply sell to the public. Many routes from point A to point B are the only ones that can be used by motorists, which gives whatever company owns it a monopoly that allows them to basically extort motorists who need it. "With privatization the cost would go down a good bit, it happens every time anything is moved from government hands into the hands of private companies."Thats only true when companies can easily compete with each other in selling their product, and you cant do that with roads because most roads are the only means of getting from one point to another which creates a mini-monopoly that a company would exploit to EXPLODE costs, not reduce it. "When the state provides a service, a monopoly is created"Postal service, your argument is invalid. 1K characters
Privatize National Roadways

Before you jump to conclusions about cost please consider the idea of market competition and the amount you already pay in taxes for roads. Already you pay about 40 cents per gallon in taxes for roads and maintenance. This means you pay about 25 dollars per month for road use. With privatization the cost would go down a good bit, it happens every time anything is moved from government hands into the hands of private companies. When the state provides a service, a monopoly is created. This eliminates competition and leads there to be no incentive to give the best product, price, and quality. So there is no need to consider the consumer. The government is going to bring in money no matter what they put out there. On the other hand Marketers must appeal to customers to stay in business so have to provide a product that"s better and less expensive. Not to mention the elimination of forcing people to pay for something that they may not want or use.
I am unintelligent

Oooooooooooo.... kay. Let me rebut your arguments "For all you know, someone I know could be pretending to be SouthernDeadhead while I am insane and babbling having lost the ability to think and reason. For all you know, I could have drug overdosed and lost the ability to have a functioning brain." Well, you are whoever posted the debate, so it really doesn't matter. Whoever is "controlling" southerndeadhead's account has to prove that THEY are unintelligent. SO PROVE TO ME SO. "According to my definition unintelligent means to be dull or stupid. For all you know, I am dull. For all you know, I have such a monotone voice that I put people to sleep. For all you know, People find me so uninteresting that I am dull to them. For all you know, I basically do nothing all day, but read the dictionary. For all you know, I'm that dull. For all you know, I am stupid. For all you know, I don't know how to spell without using spell check on every single word. For all you knnow, I can barely read. For all you know, I have a kindergarten education level and can barely function. See, from this point, you cannot tell me I am intelligent because for all you know I could be a dummy or unintelligent fool. Because you do not KNOW I am intelligent, you must assume I'm unintelligent." What the heck? For all I know, you could be lying. Half of these claims are contradictory anyway. If you can't PROVE it, it's almost like you're making it up. This isn't evidence at all. So far, you're completely wrong. I'm sure we can agree that the prefix "un" means not so unintelligent means "not intelligent" Definitions of Intelligent from Merriam Webster 1: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason 2: the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) 3: the act of understanding : comprehension You being a LIVING THING, you have to have intelligence. In your everyday life, you are forced to react to stimuli. If you are capable of typing a page in response to my arguements, then you must poses intelligence. You are able to understand what I'm saying! My opponent has came up with all these hypothetical situations, trying to play the "you don't know, so you must assume this" card. My opponents logic is like this: I don't no who gave me a christmas present. For all I know, Santa Claus could have did it. Therefore, I must assume that Santa Clause did it! I have proven that my opponent isn't "not intelligent" because I proved that intelligence is necessary for logic and reasoning. My opponent will lose if keeps failing to provide evidence that proves his point. So please vote CON. Thank You.
I am unintelligent

First, I will attack my opponent' points, then I will construct my argument: I believe the most common definition of unintelligent is this: 1. deficient in intelligence; dull; stupid. 2. not endowed with intelligence. (found at dictionary. com) OR this having or showing a lack or deficiency of intelligence (found at yourdictionary. com) Granted, your definition is applicable, but these, in my opinion are of much more common use today. "So you have to prove to me that you haven't the ability to think. Is that possible, considering the fact that you were able to surf this website and post this debate? " For all you know, someone I know could be pretending to be SouthernDeadhead while I am insane and babbling having lost the ability to think and reason. For all you know, I could have drug overdosed and lost the ability to have a functioning brain. Now, for my construction: According to my definition unintelligent means to be dull or stupid. For all you know, I am dull. For all you know, I have such a monotone voice that I put people to sleep. For all you know, People find me so uninteresting that I am dull to them. For all you know, I basically do nothing all day, but read the dictionary. For all you know, I'm that dull. For all you know, I am stupid. For all you know, I don't know how to spell without using spell check on every single word. For all you knnow, I can barely read. For all you know, I have a kindergarten education level and can barely function. See, from this point, you cannot tell me I am intelligent because for all you know I could be a dummy or unintelligent fool. Because you do not KNOW I am intelligent, you must assume I'm unintelligent.
I am unintelligent

Well, thanks for such a, ummmmmmmm. .. Humorous debate. First of all, I would like to first state that since your pro, you bear the burden of proof. In order to win, you have to prove why you are unintelligent. For me to win, I have to explain why you are "not" unintelligent Definition of Unintellegent via msn encarta: not having ability to think: not having a mind or the ability to think and reason So you have to prove to me that you haven't the ability to think. Is that possible, considering the fact that you were able to surf this website and post this debate?
Which team won civil war? (pro-team cap, con- team iron man)

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Which team won civil war? (pro-team cap, con- team iron man)

I have seen the movie, and I know the ending, the question that which team won was entirely debatable. Since Pro hasn't refuted my arguments as to why team iron man won, I think you should vote for con. I will repeat my points again- It is concluded that Team Iron man won civil war as Stark got Captain America's shield, Captain America failed to impact the Sokovia accords, Captain America and his team got declared as fugitives and in the end Bucky was shut down.
Which team won civil war? (pro-team cap, con- team iron man)

Pro, we are talking about who in the end won civil war. Furthermore, it has been proven in civil war that Captain America has a bad side to him, such as protecting Winter Soldier despite him killing Stark's parents, and even beating up Stark. Stark had to fight 2 on 1 in the last fight scene, where did his sense of justice and fairness go? Down the drain, it did. Anyways, Team Iron Man "won" civil war due to points mentioned in round 1. Pro must give some points for his side or some rebuttals. No matter how good or bad a person Captain America is, the debate is about whether he lost or not.
Which team won civil war? (pro-team cap, con- team iron man)

As you know, Captain America is the symbol of freedom and the American race. By the way, Stark Industries makes weapons. Remember in Avengers: Age of Ultron, Scarlet Witch, and Quicksilver almost died from a rocket from Stark Industries, also, countless other people have died because of the rocket explosion. On the other hand, Captain America cares about humanity and will even risk his life to save people from all over the world. I don't think Tony would ever do that. Captain America still believes that there are some good in bad people. Take Bucky a. k. a the Winter Soldier for example. After Red Skull twisted his mind and turned his evil, Steve still knew there was good in Bucky. I mean seriously, we all like people who give us second chances right?
Gun Rights in the United States

Some of you may have seen my previous argument, from which I accept my defeat. However, that will not faze my advocation for gun rights. I am a part of the National Rifle Association, however, I find information and evaluate it based on consistency from source to source and also reliability. This is a foreshadowing due to the fact I may have several sources for a single statement. I will lay down a few definitions: Murder - illegal homicide; the unlawful taking of someone's life by another person Self Defense - legal homicide; lawful taking of someone's life in order to prevent death, injury, or bodily harm by a victim. Military weapon - weapons strictly used by the military (M-16, AK-47, AUG, etc.) Assault weapon - synonymous with military weapon CCW - conceal carry weapon; the lawful licensing of an individual to carry a concealed weapon I may have left out a few necessary definitions, but I am sure my opponent and I will cover that as our argument goes on. Before this argument becomes rather confusing, I will state that: - I agree that no felon, mentally-ill or otherwise unfit person should have a firearm. - I support instant background checks and any other similar methods. - I agree minors under the age of 18 may not buy a weapon, and must be under supervision at all times by someone 18 or over when handling such a weapon. - I agree the world would be a better place without guns, but if, and only if, every single one of them are eradicated along with the numerous subcultures around them. This does not appear to be happening anytime soon. I will also ask my opponent to cite their sources, to which our voters will judge according to consistency and reliability. I will encourage voters to otherwise carefully vote according to the given criteria provided by this website. I will allow my opponent to state their case, but in order to kick-start this debate, I will state a few basic points for both my opponent and myself to base our arguments upon: - Self-defense, especially in our current world, is necessary, and given that we do not always know how deadly any possible confrontation will be, we should have firearms for our use. - Firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment that states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed." - Children are killed in gun accidents as a result of having the awestruck attitude of not knowing what a gun is, along with the inappropriate glorification of guns by video games, movies, etc. The proper counter to this is safety education on the same level as things such as sex education, driver's education, etc. - People kill people, firearms do not. Firearms are tools, and can work either toward good or evil. These are basic points I have formulated, but I encourage my opponent to feel free to state their argument and more points to debate upon. I open the floor to con for a fun and civil debate, and hopefully we may convince one another along with anyone who reads this debate.
laptopbatterij Asus a32-n56

Thank goodness my computer can automatically translate Con's argument.In case you guys' computers don't have an auto translate thing, or are too lazy to go to google translate, he's basically saying some PC Battery is a good thing. However, that would've been my argument, therefore points go to me, since I'm Pro (For).Con (Against) means that you're saying the PC Battery is fake, or untrustworthy.I'll just wait for my opponent's response. [ Dieu merci, mon ordinateur peut traduire automatiquement l'argument de Con .Dans le cas où vous les ordinateurs des gars n'avez pas une auto traduire chose, ou sont trop paresseux pour aller à google translate,il revient à dire une certaine batterie PC est une bonne chose . Cependant , ça aurait été mon argumentation , les points donc aller à moi, puisque je suis Pro ( Pour ) . Con ( contre ) signifie que vous dites la Batterie PC est faux, ou indignes de confiance .
0.999... is equal to 1

I have two things to say in the last round. 1. I heartily thank my opponent for giving me another proof that 0.999=1 which is: Let x=0.9999.... 10x=9.9999... 10x-x=9.999...-0.99999... 9x=9 x=1. 2. You say: "But, how do you say, 0.33333....+0.666....=0.9999....? Addition is not defined for these numbers." I never said that. Please read my argument in the second round again. So everybody, I repeat: There are two proofs that 0.999=1 1. 0.33 = 1/3 0.66 = 2/3 0.99 = 3/3 = 1 2. Let x=0.9999.... 10x=9.9999... 10x-x=9.999...-0.99999... 9x=9 x=1 VOTE PRO. I strongly ask voters to vote by power of debate not by their own opinions. Thanks, Adil, Qatar.
0.999... is equal to 1

1/3=0.333.... and 2/3=0.6666....... Fine, I get these two. But, how do you say, 0.33333....+0.666....=0.9999....? Addition is not defined for these numbers. You would have to define all the arithmetic operations to even say that 0.333...+ 0.666...=0.999.... To put it simply, you have not proved all the operations working on normal, rational numbers would work on this mathematical entity, this repeating decimal number. Argument in the comments: The "algebraic proof" goes like this. Let x=0.9999.... 10x=9.9999... 10x-x=9.999...-0.99999... 9x=9 x=1 The same problem lies with this argument. There is no proof of why the arithmetic operations would work on repeating decimal numbers. Making an axiom out of this fails too. For that matter, you could have made an axiom straight away stating 0.9999...=1 The opponent is required to make an argument for the same without creating unnecessary axioms. And, as Pro said, vote based on the power of the debate, not on your preconceived notions.