BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalization of All Drugs ...

'Legalizing all of the drugs would cause a world panic' My opponent has given no reason what so ever why it would cause world panic . 'People would die,' Legalization of all drugs would lead to the bankruption of the black market , and the legal market would be regulated therefore drug use would be safer and the risk of overdose from drugs like heroin would go down dramatically , I just explained that Drug legalization would cause less people to die from drug use and less people would die because of drug related violance . ', country's would go broke because of all the drugs being smuggled into the country's. ' Why would drugs be smuggled if there wes a legal drug market in the country already? and how does this relate to countries going broke? ' This would we almost as bad as the holocaust.' That's one of the most irrational arguments I have heard in a long time on this website .
Gay Marriage

i disagree with you when you say that when it comes to something like marriage you believe you can't separate them. Even though marriage technically is derived from religion, people still get married without using the religious connotation of the word "marriage". therefore, the word "marriage" has changed its meaning over time. so if you say that homosexuals cannot get married because of the religious aspect, wouldn't that mean that atheists or agnostics or muslims or whoever doesn't follow the bible could not get married either? when you say that when the debate has to do more with opinion than it does with religion, I think you are absolutely right. It has to do with what people see and what they want to see in society and as becoming the society's norm. But even though a lot of people disagree with gay marriage, that doesn't mean that it should be outlawed. Lots of people disagree with smoking cigarettes, but that doesn't mean it should be outlawed. The fact is that being with who you want to be with is a right that no authority or government or God should be allowed to take away.
Gay Marriage

One thing I wanted to mention that I forgot to before. For people seeing this debate I am not homophobic and have friends who are gay or lesbian. My opinion and politics doesn't affect my friendship with others nor would I let it. Now on to my points: * I completely understand the separation of church and state however when it comes to something like marriage I believe you can't separate them. Religion is a part of marriage because you are joining a man and a woman before a higher power/ along with family. * When I talk about culture and this is why this debates gets into political parties is because both democrats and republicans don't support gay marriage with the exception of kusinich (think that is how you spell him). Most Americans don't support due to religion or what they think is wrong due to other reasons. I hope that this is an okay response again the debate has more to do with opinion, the role of religion in marriage, what culture deems norm, and not as much about stats and facts.
Gay Marriage

you say that marriage has a lot to do with religion, and by religion i know that you are speaking of the bible and that it states that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It is true that most Americans are either christians or follow the bible in some way, shape, or form, but you have to remember that there is a separation of church and state in our country (meaning that religion should not affect the laws and vice versa). So even though it may not be right according to the bible that two men or two women get married, that should not have any effect on whether the country should legalize it or illegalize it. I'm not saying that it is wrong if you believe 2 dudes shouldn't married, but that shouldn't be the reason that it is illegal. You say that culture is not ready for homosexual marriage, but honestly, how big of a difference is it really going to make? There still are going to be gay couples even if they cannot marry. To add to this, i think that it is wrong for our country to single out a group of people and take away some rights just because they think differently. In my opinion, gay marriage is exercising freedom of expression, and for a government to take away that freedom to any extent is fascist. tell me what you think -curtis
Gay Marriage

To start my points I will go over marriage it ‘self then why I think gay marriage is a larger debate then just if gay people should be allowed to get married. *Marriage is defined as between a man, and women also religion has a lot to do with marriage. This is why the debate will keep going the way it goes. *Culture is not ready for two people that are gay to be standing in front of a preacher conferring those two people. I include myself as one of these people and have no problem saying so. Is it wrong of me to think this way? To me no to others yes and I respect the view of people that would disagree. *Will things change maybe but right now they will not because neither major party would support gay marriage. The majority of moderate democrats will do is allow for civil unions and republican's flat out don't support civil unions.
Gay Marriage

In terms of the rights of muslims, atheists and agnostics that is still a man and women getting married which even if it is not religious it still is the tradition of a man and women. I know that still goes back to the argument of culture and norms but at this point that is where the debate will go back to each time. I respect your opinion and think you have a valid point however I think marriage is a man and women and civil unions I would support. Thank you for a good debate and let's see how the votes turn out. In terms of the smoking we will see how long it is before we can't smoke in the streets being as we can't in some bar's lounges, and restaurants.
Edward Kenway vs. Connor Kenway

Again though, you've failed to refute my claims about Connor. In fact, you've completely affirmed them to be true. You state that Edward's better because he was a reckless pirate who cared about nothing but fame and glory. This man has no real directive other than that of the promise of wealth, power, and infamy. Even as a feared and respected pirate, that doesn't make him a better assassin. It makes him the better pirate. Connor put the good of his village above his own needs. When his village was burned to the ground, he swore to avenge the people that were harmed. He didn't do it out of his own selfish needs to become wealthy or famed; he did it because he wanted to right the wrongs that were committed by Charles Lee, Haytham Kenway, Thomas Hickey, and company. As it was stated right in Edward Kenway's wiki page, it wasn't until after he lost everything that he made any sort of attempt to change his ways. Connor Kenway was a man of the people and he carried out what it truly means to be an assassin. He never looked for an infinitesimal amount of power over others, unlike Edward. He cared for the good of others and saw them as those that deserved to be free. He fought for the Assassin way of life and he fought against the tyranny of the Templar Order rather than delivering to them one of the great secrets of the day. Connor embodied everything a good Assassin should be and, unlike Edward, he was not shunned from the order in the beginning. He not only saved countless lives from the tyranny that was Great Britain at the time, but he also saved the life of one of the most influential figures in American history. Connor prevented an attempt on George Washington's life by the Templars. ###SPOILER ALERT###Edward couldn't even stop Blackbeard from being killed by nothing more than common soldiers. ###END SPOILER### In conclusion, Ratonhnhak":ton "Connor" Kenway truly was a greater assassin than that of Edward Kenway.
Edward Kenway vs. Connor Kenway

That may be true, but Edward is alot better than Connor, This is from his wiki page.During his formative years, Edward was a reckless, albeit brave individual who was infatuated with the idea of fame and glory. Such was his obsession that he left his first wife to become a privateer in the British Navy, hoping to score his fortune in the Caribbean and prove his worth. After the Treaty of Utrecht effectively made privateers redundant, many turned to a life of piracy, Edward among them.[4] As the captain of the Jackdaw he quickly became feared and respected for his skill at the helm of a ship and his combat prowess, with even the renowned Edward Thatch commenting on his ability. It was the promise of wealth, power and infamy that spurred Edward into seeking out the Observatory, at the expense of both the Templars and Assassins. Although the Assassin Mary Read knew him to be good at heart and capable of change, the Assassins en-large remained suspicious of him and strongly disagreed with his lifestyle. Despite the vested interest of both the Assassins and the Templars in the veteran pirate, Edward remained steadfastly focused on his own goals: power, infamy and proof that he was better than he was born to be. Edward was also one to take any advantage afforded him, twisting the meaning of the Assassins' Creed to suit his own ends. Only after losing his friends and compatriots to greed and glory-seeking did he recant his previous behavior, and come to realize what the Creed truly promised: the power to make himself better than he was.[6] As a father, Edward encouraged his son to think for himself instead of believing everything his home-school teachers said. He also expressed pride toward his son when Haytham said that he would have offered a mugger clemency, instead of acting on the impulse to kill him. Edward could be quite conservative in other respects, such as his decision to marry off his daughter to Birch, as was the tradition of the day.[2]
Edward Kenway vs. Connor Kenway

"He kills an assassin to claim his reward for leaving the assassins." The thing is, Edward didn't kill an assassin to claim that assassin's rewards for leaving the order, Edward killed the bloke because that man sunk Edward's original ship. The man happened to be an assassin and the item he had was information that he planned to hand over to the Templars, a quest that Edward fulfilled for the traitor. Edward is nothing more than the common pirate who came upon some good fortune. He is no true assassin. As I stated before, he was never fully inducted to the Order of Assassins, unlike Connor who was officially inducted by Achilles. Even in his life, Connor underwent far greater trials than Edward. He helped the Americans win the Revolutionary War through critical points such as The Battle of Bunker Hill and the Battle of Lexington. Connor rode with Paul Revere to alert the people of the blooming country that the British were coming to invade. Connor even stopped tyranny in an alternate reality. When the Apple of Eden created an alternate universe around him in which George Washington become the new king of the colonies, Connor did all in his power to stop this newfound foe. Edward had to beat down an old man who wished to use an ancient piece of technology that wasn't working properly because he was missing a necessary component. While Edward hunted the Caribbean to find a Sage, Connor moved along fighting the British, battling the Templars, defending a piece of Eden, and at one point, he even made an attempt to unite the Assassins and Templars by reuniting with his Templar father, Haytham. Of the Kenways, Connor was truly the greater assassin and the only true assassin.
Edward Kenway vs. Connor Kenway

First off Thank you for that comment. second off if would like to say that Edward was the Grandfather of Connor, so that is how Connor can steer a ship so good. 2nd off. Edward had to undergo many struggles through his life. First off he promised his wife he would come home. He kills an assassin to claim his reward for leaving the assassins. Joins the Templars for a little bit, but then joins the assassins. He gets his own ship called the Jackdaw, named after a pet bird. he has a freed slave to become his quatermaster. His first wife dies, he remarries. etc. dude come on he is awsome and should be the top assassin.
Edward Kenway vs. Connor Kenway

I'm under the assumption that we're taking this time to do our constructive arguments. In that case, let's roll on. Connor Kenway is a better assassin than Edward Kenway. Connor ended up having to face many more hardships in terms of both physical and emotional distress and, unlike Edward, Connor is a true inductee to the Assassin Order. What Edward manage to do was kill an assassin who happened to be traitorous and take his clothing. Edward never intended to become an assassin, unlike Connor. Even when Edward had accepted the guise of the assassin lifestyle, the only thing he did was give the Templars an advantage over the Assassins in the quest for ultimate knowledge. The entirety of Assassin's Creed IV was based around Edward Kenway looking to fix his mistakes. However, coming away from Edward's shortcomings as an "Assassin," we must take into account Connor's prowess as an Assassin and a person. He did not run around on his own accord taking whatever he saw fit. Connor was no pirate. In fact, he was raised in a tribe that was entrusted with guarding a Piece of Eden. Even before Connor became an Assassin, he had already taken his first steps towards the order in protecting a Piece of Eden from the likes of the Templars, especially that of his father Haytham Kenway and Charles Lee. In his lifetime, Connor had joined and was inducted, officially mind you, to the Assassin's Order, the Hunting Society, the Boston Brawlers, and he became captain of his very own ship, The Aquila. In summary, due to myself running short on time, Connor truly is the better assassin and his accomplishments do out-shine that of Edward Kenway. I look forward to your rebuttal. Also, is that a Connor Kenway profile picture I spy? Very nice.
Resolved: That on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive im

First, I'm sorry I hadn't posted an argument I haven't been able to have extra time lately. 1) Your first attack against my case doesn't hold up, because if the United States began to manufacture all of our own goods etc. we would have to build factories, machines, etc. which means that we will be spending more money buying the materials to have the facilities to make the cars etc. that we need, when we could just get them from the BRIC countries for cheaper. Right now, in our economy, when something is cheap and efficient the U.S. only has the choice to take that option. 2) I don't quite understand where you are going with your attack on my case. The BRIC nations are working with the U.S. to help keep the US doing well, and whatnot, in our economy and they do not want to have the US end in destruction because they are making a lot of income and revenue off of the buying/trade the U.S. does with these countries. 3) Thank you for agreeing with me. This only proves that the PRO case can with the Debate. Now on to Your arguments: 1) Like I said in my rebuttal to your arguments against my point 1...We lose money when we make items here, and we are ineffiecient if we are making items and having thousands of more factories in the US if we aren't going to the BRIC countries to help us out. We get good deals on items/goods from them, so there is no need to have to produce our own goods in the US if we already have a cheap and effective way to get the goods that we need. 2) We already have manufacturing companies and other countries can buy our products, this does not mean that they are a threat to the US, or the US economy. Thank you....comments, questions?
Resolved: That on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive im

My first point is that exporting low-paying and low-skill jobs to BRIC nations benefits the U.S. in the long run. When these BRIC nations get more jobs to make American products, Americans are just as happy as with American-made products. When we use people from other countries to work in factories to manufacture goods for America, those low rate people who had never had jobs before now do have jobs. Thus meaning, they will have more money in their pocket and when they want special American-made goods, like cars, foods, and such, they will be more apt to buy from America since they now have money from Americans to make the same products that we already would have had. This makes Americans TONS of money that we can use to pay off many of the debts we owe. My second point is that the rise of these nations will positively impact the U.S. by creating new and expansive markets for domestic goods. As the middle class grows in the BRIC countries, the demand for quality goods and services will rise. This creates even more opportunities for the US to make money off these nations. The U.S. will be able to produce more and more goods and services. This will enable more jobs to be put into play in the United States for American citizens, instead of using foreign job help. This makes American citizens more money, as well as our government, because we are becoming less job dependant on other countries when we use our own American citizens to make goods, and provide services. The demand for luxury goods have risen by 15% in the last several years. They are just waiting for the products to be made by American workers, which we have plenty of unemployed people to fill the slots. My third point is that as BRIC countries become economically stronger they will have a vested interest in global stability thus taking pressure off the U.S. as the "bad guy". For example, China wants us to remain afloat and not fall as a country. They want us to succeed mainly because they want their money back that they financed us through our bailouts and major debts we still owe. They want us to be happy with them because they helped us in our time of economic downturn, so they want us to keep buying and helping out their economics as much as we can. The other BRIC Countries have done the same exact thing, and feel the same way about keeping the U.S. in balance and having a mutual peace stability among the nations. For these reasons I urge a PRO vote on the resolved case: That on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States.
.9999 repeating = 1

I really didn't expect a response, let alone so quickly, so I appreciate you tasking up the challenge; good luck to you sir. Alright lets get down to it. "The first thing that we have to understand that infinity is (despite its name) is a finite number..." - You Seeing as infinity can be a property or a conceptual value, your introductory statement has this sentence structure: ~~ We have to understand that A (despite being A) is not A. ~~ This is a logical fallacy. See the Reflexive Property: http://www.mathwords.com... Infinity is neither a number nor is it finite. The article you cited doesn't indicate infinity to be finite, but instead describes it's behavior for UNBOUNDED limits. On this note, I should stress that limits do not have to always apply to nor be finite numbers. Because, your entire argument is contingent on the point that infinity is not really infinite, and no reliable source has been demonstrated to back this claim, I would recommend a different approach. However, if you insist that your link does provide evidence to support your claim you will have to post quotes from it to better communicate the issue. Clearly, the burden of proof you carry has not yet been met. That being said, my first proof for .999 repeating = 1 is as follows: x/9 = .xxxxx repeating, if x <= 9 Example: 1/3 = .3333 repeating. Therefore: 1 = 9/9 = 3/3 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = (.333 repeating) times 3 = .999 repeating Or you can always do the direct method: 4/9 = .4444 repeating 9/9 = .9999 repeating <---------- and 9/9 = 1.
.9999 repeating = 1

The first thing that we have to understand that infinity is (despite its name) is a finite number as explained in this article . http://en.wikipedia.org.... All infinity is the largest number and would end it would just be really big. Now then with this idea down a will attack the theory that my opponent will try to use to prove his point. Most people would use this equation to try to prove this to be true. Let x = .999. .. 10x = 9.999. .. (multiplying RHS and LHS by 10) 10x - x = 9.999. .. - x (subtracting x from both sides) 9x = 9 x = 1 .999. .. = 1 But the problem with this that if infinity did equal a finite number then the nines would have to stop a t some point. Now to use an example ( In this example I will say that infinity equals to 5 because I don't feel like writing a lot of 9's) Let x = .99999 (.9 to the infinite digit) 10x = 9.9999 10x – x = 9.9999 - .99999 9x = 8.00001 Thus .99999…. wouldn't't equal 1
.9999 repeating = 1

As we all should know: .9 = 9/10 .99 = 99/100 .999 = 999/1000 etc. In this debate, I support the notion that an infinite number of 9's after the decimal place is simply a different notation for writing the number 1. My claim is simply that .99999... (where the "..." denotes repeating) = 1 exactly.
jesus Christ was not a real historical figure

Here I am NOT arguing about the biblical account of Jesus. This will be about him not existing historically. May I elaborate? The Romans established the first true bureaucracy. They were compulsive record keepers. Many of those records survive today. That's why we know so much about them. They recorded everything, from the most mundane daily activities such as sales of livestock and goods, to births, deaths and especially criminal proceedings. A criminal trial that resulted in the death penalty and a public execution would have been recorded. Before you say that it has been 2 thousand years and many records are gone, let me say that the search for an independent record of Jesus did not start recently. When the Christian Constantine became emperor in 315 AD, he commissioned an extensive search of the public records to find an independent record of Jesus. That was less than 300 years after the alleged event. Nothing was found. This type of search went on throughout Christian history, and has turned up nothing. While it is clearly possible that those records did exist, and were lost, or destroyed, it still raises questions. Also, most Biblical scholars agree that the Gospels of Luke, Matthew Mark, and John, supposedly contemporary accounts of Jesus' life, were actually not written by those apostles, and were likely written as much as 100 years after the alleged events. So there is no existing independent confirmation that a man named Jesus ever existed. If you want to believe that he did, that's fine, but don't make the claim that there is dependable documentation of that.
Daang Muwid is Ineffective

Amidst the different issues of corruption and illegalities, the country ranked 94th out of 177 countries in the survey conducted by the Corruption Perception Index and scored 36 out of 100 (with 0 perceived as highly corrupt and 100 as perceived as a very clean country) (Transparency International , 2014). This is an improvement of 40 spots from 134th in 2010.
Daang Muwid is Ineffective

China, which has lifted hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty through double-digit growth for the past 30 years, will probably snicker about good governance being the solution to poverty and mass unemployment. The mere fact that China"s President Xi Jinping is engaging in a massive anti-corruption campaign reaching into the highest levels of the Communist Party shows that China didn"t exactly follow the "straight path" solution to economic growth.