BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
SEND THEM A MESSAGE THAT THIS LIMIT TO MESSAGES IS RETARDED PLS, 5 messages omg..... MAKE IT ENDLESS

5 messages... is retarded...........they should do like youtube, some one present an argument, video, picture what ever, and then you can poste stuff there and everyone can join in at any time, perfekt, but instead of a video, its an argument, but an argument can be in the form of a video and then you argue from it yes, you know what I mean... so its like you should make you tube but in debate style,
Hillary Clinton would make a bad president

However, I would like to discuss the resolution and BoP. Resolution: Hillary Clinton Would Make a Bad President. What does it mean to be a bad president? While this is an incredibly complex topic, it may be summed up simply. Since pro has not put forth what a bad president is, or any methodological tools for determining if one would be a bad president, I would like to present the following definitions and methodology. A bad president is one, who if elected, would entail a net degradation of well being for the country, and the way in which this would be achieved is through bad policy. I believe this is a sound definition, because a good president is often said to be one who entailed an increase in well being for the country, and furthermore that this was done through good policy. So through negation of what a good president is, we can reasonably interpret what a bad one is. BOP: Pro is making a positive assertion, that something is the case, namely that if Hilary Clinton were to be elected president, it would be the case that she would be a bad president. As such, pro is required to provide argumentation for such a claim, and as con, it is merely my job to negate pro's arguments for the proposition. I am not required to argue that Hilary Clinton would make a good president, but I very well may.
Android is better than IOS

Thank you for accepting. Let's get this out of the way, IOS doesn't have a sd card slot which means it doesn't have expandable storage but Android phones do have sd card slots so Android users can buy sd cards for extra storage up to 1 Terabyte which is more than most laptops. If you want more storage on IOS the only way is to buy a iphone with higher storage which costs way higher than most sd cards or by a new phone. Customisation: Android has way more customizable options. Such as widgets which is a small part of bigger application on the home screen for easy access. Then there are launcher which are third party application which changes the way your phone looks and it can be suites to your preference, some of most used launchers are nova launcher, touchwiz launcher, cm launcher, z launcher and Google now launcher. The default search engine can be set by default unlike IOS. you can further customise your Android by flashing a custom Rom which is a modified version of Android. You can download one to your preference, it updates your android to the latest version ands a few tweaks here and there. You can also root your Android device which is the equivalent of IOS jail breaking. On IOS it is illegal while on Android it isn't. Range of phones: Android has a wider range of phones to choose from than IOS. So you can buy one to your preference but in IOS you are stuck with about 10 phones while Android has 24,000 phones. I am look forward to debating with you
The PS4 is a better console than the Xbox One (No Fanboys) 2

Sorry about the short rounds, I was relatively constrained on time as I was writing these.The mentioning of The Order was to further bring up my point of quality and quanitity. While yes, PlayStation may have a wider variety of games, are those games going to be generally viewed of higher quality? Some games, as I mentioned before, like the Order, were one of the PlayStation 4's many releases that ended up going downhill.As well, opponent has still not refuted the CPU argument, instead arguing over the GPU. And while it may be true the GPU is better the CPU argument remains uncontested and thus goes to show a way in which the Xbox One is better than the PS4. As well, the Xbox One prevails in areas such as streaming to Twitch, TV access, HDMI-IN, and more.Overall, while opponent has shown ways in which the PS4 is better than the Xbox One, I have shown a way (or ways, if you will) in which the PS4 is NOT the better console.Either way I believe Pro's BoP is left unfulfilled.Thank you for the debate!
The PS4 is a better console than the Xbox One (No Fanboys) 2

Thank you for replying I will now respond to my opponents comments. "Despite the PS4 having a huge amount superior hardware, the Xbox One still prevails on CPU and GPU (when the Kinect isn't plugged in). As well, the part about the games being better, as well as exclusives, is entirely subjective. For instance, many people were hyped about The Order, yet it turned out to be a horrible game amongst many gamers. As well, in common image comparisons of games across PC, PS4, and XBONE, The PS4 has higher tesselation yet the Xbox One has more vivid colors. Depending on the TV the tesselation/resolution might not even matter that much." I will first of all address this point you first state that the xbox one prevails on the GPU side of it even though it is factually weaker even with the kinect not being attached to it, due to its size and the fact that it has 6 more compute units than the xbox one meaning, along with the far superior RAM means that the ps4 is factually more powerful than the XBOX 1 even with the CPU advantage. Next I will address the comment con made when he said that the part of the games being better is entirely subjective, I myself am sick of the "its your opinion" argument on a video game debate, because the whole point of this debate and debate in general is expressing your opinion, using facts and opinions. The point of that comment wasn't the quality of the games, but the larger amount of games, as well as the fact that the exclusives on the PS4 are on a wider range of genres than the exclusives on the Xbox one meaning there is at least a couple of games for everyone, as well as factually superior multiplats, and playsation now services, mean the PS4 have a factually superior game lineup, going into the next few years, in my opinion. Your comment that the order 1886 is a bad game is also opinion based, meaning that con was clearly being hypocritical.
The PS4 is a better console than the Xbox One (No Fanboys) 2

Keep in mind the resolution is 'The PS4 is a better console than the Xbox One' and as such opponent has the full BoP. My side of the case is NOT to prove the Xbox One is Better than the PS4, but rather, The PS4 is NOT better than the Xbox One. better - of a more excellent or effective type or qualityAnd opponent has already done this for me, when in R2 he states that the CPU of the Xbox One is slightly better than that of the PS4, making the Xbox One "better" in that aspect, so the PS4, in this regard, is NOT better than the Xbox One. Despite the PS4 having a huge amount superior hardware, the Xbox One still prevails on CPU and GPU (when the Kinect isn't plugged in). As well, the part about the games being better, as well as exclusives, is entirely subjective. For instance, many people were hyped about The Order, yet it turned out to be a horrible game amongst many gamers. As well, in common image comparisons of games acrost PC, PS4, and XBONE, The PS4 has higher tesselation yet the Xbox One has more vivid colors. Depending on the TV the tesselation/resolution might not even matter that much. To summarize:Opponent already points out ways the PS4 is NOT better than the Xbox OneOpponent's arguments about quantity of games and games that are more supreme on the PS4 are subjective and prove nothing. As such, opponent has failed to show that the PS4, in all ways, is better than the Xbox One. Thank you!
The PS4 is a better console than the Xbox One (No Fanboys) 2

Ok so i will be arguing that the PS4 is the better console so first i will be talking about the hardware. Hardware OK starting with the CPU both consoles use a semi custom AMD APU, however the Xbox One's CPU clocks at 1.75 GHz, while the PS4's only clock in at 1.6 Ghz making the xbox ones slightly better. Now onto the GPU the PS4's GPU is slightly larger and has 6 more comute units than the Xbox One. However the Xbox One is slightly faster.On paper the Ps4 is 50% more powerful and the fact that 10% of the Xbox Ones GPU power will be put into kinect, it means that the PS4 has a huge advantage on the Xbox One in terms of the GPU, and to finish this part of the debate, the PS4 has 8GBof DDR5 RAM, while the XBOX ONE has the far inferior DDR3 RAM.This gives the PS$ a massive bandwidth advantage over the XBOX ONE, with the PS4"s CPU and GPU will have 176GB/sec of bandwidth to system RAM, while the Xbox One will have just 68.3GB/sec.This makes the PS4 the far more powerful console. Games OK lets start with the multiplats, its widely known that the majority of multiplats such as Metal Gear Solid 5, Assassins Creed, Call Of Duty, Battlefield, NBA 2k series etc.All Multiplats are either the same or better on the PS4 and that will not change due to the superior hardware on the PS4. Next thing i will discuss is the exclusives. The PS4 has 85 Exclusives both out now and coming soon, and these are only the ones we know of right now, as well as 2 timed exclusives, games like Infamous, Killzone, Knack, Driveclub, The Order 1886, Bloodbourne, Street Fighter V, Persona 5, MLB 15 The Show, Uncharted 4, The Last Of Us, Everybody's Gone To The Rapture, Deep Down, Rogue Gallery, Planetside 2, Little Big Planet 3, Hotline Miami, Dayz, H1Z1, Gran Tourismo 7, God Of War 4 and Octodad, while the Xbox One only has 39 exclusives, and most of them are in a similar genre of game, such as titanfall, the halo games and the upcoming gears of war. As well as mediocre games, like Sunset Overdrive, Rise Son Of Rome and Killer Instinct. Therefore in my opinion, i feel the PS4 has the advantage in both quality and quantity. As well as all that the playsation 4 has the Playsation now system wqhich allows users to stream ps3 games, as well as ps 1 and 2 games in the future increasing the games libary by potentially tens of thousands of games, making it by far the better console out of the two. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The PS4 is a better console than the Xbox One (No Fanboys) 2

Quick Rules 1. No Moaning or B***hing 2. We all know PC is factually the best platform for gaming, but this debate has nothing to do with PC, so no references to PC should be made in this debate. 3.Round one will be acceptance, round 2 will be your main arguement and round 3 will be any rebutals.
Should "bullies" go to jail if they bully a child who commited suicide

Ok to start of I would just like to address the point that bullies are not incredibly stupid. These are people who's main source of entertainment is annoying other people. Does that sound like someone intelligent to you? I have met clever bullies but they are very few and far between. The vast vast majority of bullies are so unbelievably stupid that their stupidity should be classed as a mental illness. These bullies are not paying attention to the campaigns, they probably don't even know the campaigns are going on, except as a source of amusement and something to laugh at. (I have observed all of these things within my year group at school.) Now I would like to go back to the definition of manslaughter. The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection. As I said in my last speech, manslaughter is the unlawful KILLING of a human being. These bullies are still not killing anyone, they are driving them to kill themselves. There is a very big difference. It is like the difference between throwing someone of a cliff, and just pushing them to the edge, the person on the edge still has to choose to jump. So by the definition of manslaughter which is what I believe we are accusing the bully of in this debate he has not committed manslaughter, due to the fact that they did not kill them child, they drove the child to killing themselves.
Should "bullies" go to jail if they bully a child who commited suicide

First off I would like to state that the bully knows that teasing could damage someone, because of bullying campaigns. They would have to be stupid not to know that teasing could hurt someone, mentally. And the children who commit suicide might not have mental issues, I have been bullied, hardcore also, and I have almost commited suicide. That doesnt mean i am mentally ill. It is not the persons fault that they are sensetive, it matters that someone is hurting them enough to make them contimplate suicide. Everyone is different, one child might be bullied so bad that they will kill themselves, and some might be tough skined. We need to show these bullies that they could potentially hurt people to the extent of them commiting suicide. These bullies kill children, whether they mean to or not, they still have bullied the child enough to make them kill themselves. For this they should go to juvi, or jail, and spend time thinking about what they have done to a child. Im not saying they should be tried as adults, but they should spend time for invertedly killing someone. They have an idea of what a bully is, and what a bully does, unless they are incredibally stupid, which noone is incredibally stupid, so they know if they are hurting someone mentally or physically.
Should "bullies" go to jail if they bully a child who commited suicide

Ok I will begin by replying to the pro's argument before going on to make another of my own. First to respond to the pro's argument it is no certain thing that bullies even know the effect of what they are doing. Yes if they are physically attacking this child they will probably know what they are doing, unless they are unbelievably stupid, but they often don't know how damaging what they are doing is if they are just teasing. They probably think that it is, "Just a bit of fun." And they have no idea what the things they are saying is doing to the child inside. Also the definition of manslaughter is The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection. The unlawful KILLING of a human being. no matter what the bully has done they did not kill the child. The child chose to kill themselves. Therefore by definition it is not manslaughter. (definition from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...) Now onto my own point. Please nobody vote bomb me for saying this but we do have to question the mind-set of someone who is driven to such lengths. You are right about one thing, to drive a child to suicide a bully would have to truly make their life hell, and I do not believe most bullies have it in them to drive a child to this level. I have been bullied and that was not a bit of teasing that was proper, hard-core bullying. But the concept of suicide never even crossed my mind. I truly believe that in order to be driven to suicide by bullying you must already be either slightly unstable or incredibly sensitive. Which brings me back to my original point that the bully could not possibly have had any idea that the poor child they were bullying had this kind of mind-set, and so they can not be fully blamed for the effect of their bullying.
Should "bullies" go to jail if they bully a child who commited suicide

I will be posting my arguement, and argueing con's. Ok, so the bullies go to school, and hear about suicide everyday. They have bullying campains all over the world, so you cannot argue that the bully had no knowledge of the consequences of his bullying. The bully knows that they are harming the child/teen by bullying them. They understand that harming someone emotionally, and or physically can harm someone to the point of Dieing. And the bully does force the child into death, because the bully is making the childs life metaphorically "hell". Bullies have heard many campains, unless they live under a rock. And yes, they should go to jail, or juvi for manslaughter charges because they killed someone invertedly through bullying. Now Onto cons arguement. 176 kids killed themselves! That is 176 more children then it should be. 4,000 deaths per year because of bullying. That is way to many, the bullies should learn from their mistakes, and spend time thinking about their mistakes. Yes, the child is choosing this, because the bully has pushed them to do so.
Should "bullies" go to jail if they bully a child who commited suicide

We should not send bullies to jail if children the bully commit suicide for a number of reasons. The most simple one of these is that the bully could not have known that their bullying would lead to such a disastrous event. Up and down the country thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of children are bullied each year, and in the U.K only 176 children killed themselves between 2000 and 2008 (source beatbullying.org). While this number is still far too big it is a tiny percentage. So the bully would have no way of knowing what a disastrous event they would cause. And while you may argue that it should still count as manslaughter remember, this child is still choosing to do this. No matter how terrible the bully was making their life they didn't force the child to kill themselves. They chose to do it, and I don't think you can blame anyone else, no matter how horrible they are, for the child's own choice.
The Roswell Incident Was A Government Coverup

My conclusion will be short. My opponent was unable to submit a final round and contrary to his comments, I addressed his attempt to remove the extraterrestrials from the Pro position. All points have been covered. Pro did not meet the burden for instigator. I do not vote on my debates unless my opponent forfeits, and this one is very close to a forfeit as Pro offered so little after RD 1. I urge a vote for Con and I will take most debates concerning Roswell and the Majestic 12 documents as I have yet to find a convincing case supporting the pro alien position. I am still looking…the truth is out there.
The Roswell Incident Was A Government Coverup

All points from my round 1 carry as Pro never addressed them. Pro used rd 1 to explain to us about alien sightings concerning the event and why the military would cover up the alien encounter. He presented this material with the resolution, as instigator he must substantiate it. As I said in rd 1, he cannot do this. Pro brought alien life forms into this debate, I simply responded. He cannot divorce himself from it now. Pro claims the events at Roswell were classified two levels above the H-Bomb. What is this clearance called, Pro? Where did you get this information? Clearances are not as big a deal as "need to know" so I am interested in where Pro got this information. Project Mogul was a top secret project and was not just a bunch of balloons (Pro linked the project). The project was top secret as it related to detecting enemy missile tests. Where are you getting this information about two levels above the H-Bomb? The military responded as we should expect when a top secret project crashes. The "cover up" had nothing to do with aliens. If Pro did not wish to discuss aliens and Roswell, I ask that he explain why both of his arguments center on extraterrestrials? The remainder of Pro's second round is irrelevant to this debate. I made clear that I accept the possibility of life on other planets and this debate is about Roswell. I have no need to address this matter any further. Pro has dropped all points of contention and is far from upholding the resolution he provided. And he avoided all of my questions. Going into our conclusions Pro has not met his burden.
Hands on learning should be mandated in every school

Which one? Me losing or schools hands on learning?LOL Well, I think there should be classes available in higher grades (7-12) and that a student would chose according to their plans for a job/career OR if they want the hands on learning. Whats the point of learning things if your never going to need them?In fact, I think SCHOOL all together should be based on what you are going to be when you grow up. This is something you'd decide after 6th grade.But what's the point of Learning science when you're going to be a cashier at a restaurant? It isn't needed.
Hands on learning should be mandated in every school

As a student, I believe that the current education system is not very effective. As of now, the education system seems to focus mostly on getting students to know the theories, not to get help them understand and apply it in real life situations. This has resulted to several problems such as unskilled college graduates and individuals who are not fond of learning which prevents optimal growth both to the individual and to the economy. For example, in psychology classes, students are taught positive reinforcement, a method to increase the rate of behavior by rewarding an individual every time they engage in that behavior. While many students do understand the concept, it seems that the majority of the students are incapable in applying such technique to improve their lives and relationship with other people. Another example is business classes. While business students do know the theories of advertising and do really good in case studies, many of them are incapable of actually advertising products when they are told to. As students spend most of their time listening to theories without any experiential learning in schools, it has caused the lack of skilled workers in the workplace: the Business Intelligence Congress recently revealed that universities are not producing qualified graduates skilled in business intelligence. According to the 2012 IBM Technology Trends report, only one in 10 organizations has the skills needed to benefit from advanced technology such as social software, and nearly half of the educators and students surveyed indicated there are major gaps in their institutions' ability to meet current and future IT skill needs in such areas as social technology and practices. A third industry report indicates that, over the next seven years, the need for highly skilled business intelligence workers in the U.S. alone will dramatically exceed the available workforce--by as much as 60%. http://www.fastcompany.com... Schools are said to be the institution that will broaden our knowledge and prepare us to face upcoming problems in the future. While it is doing a pretty good job in broadening knowledge, it is not preparing us well for the future. Hands-on learning will not only prepare students to cope with the future, as it allows them to apply the knowledge they have, but also to broaden their knowledge even further. David L. Haury and Peter Rillero asserts that the following are some benefits of hands-on learning in terms of education: 1. increased learning 2. increased motivation to learn 3. increased enjoyment of learning 4. increased skill proficiency, including communication skills 5. increased independent thinking and decision making based on direct evidence and experiences 6. increased perception and creativity http://www.ncrel.org... Under these reasons, I believe hands-on learning should be mandated in every school.