BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A united world consting of a democratic goverment that rules all

"All nations could share a equal amount of things with eachother" This does not answer what I previously postulated: If all nations producing water are required to share that water in such a way that everyone has the same amount, then most nations will end up with less water than they have now. I won't repost my entire previous argument, however. "ethnic and religion would be a major role in this play. The separate religions could teach eachother new ways of things, or make one mega religion that combines parts of every religion together. They could come up with ways of food to mix with eachother, like majority rules." A natural "mix-and-flow" of cultures through trade does this already, and is quite another thing from forcing everyone to live under the same flag and in the same land. "Every country could have the same amount of land, also creating new countries." This would go over very badly as it would mean many nations would have to give up land, something I doubt is going to happen easily. Also, some nations need more land than others, and thus it's perfectly right that their country should be bigger. A nation of 3 million obviously doesn't need and shouldn't have as much land as a land of 300 million, and that land of 300 million, already packed, shouldn't be forced to give up its territory, thus packing its population even tighter, just to give extra land to people who do not even need it. "Revolution wouldnt be necessary because people can have their say in what should happen." What about when people become unhappy with the decisions the world government is making for their country? All governments ultimately fall; nothing is permanent. "And every country will have their own seperate democratic leader. If one goes against it, they will get punished, taken out, and prosecuted." In other words, like all governments, a world government would keep its position of power by force. If a leader chose to go against the world government, they would remove him from power, meaning if he and his people resisted, there *would* be war. That is international totalitarianism. I contend that a world government would make the world even more war-prone than it already is, since, if everyone was involved in the governing of everyone else, it would be next to impossible for nations to mind their own business and leave others be. I await my opponent's closing remarks.
A united world consting of a democratic goverment that rules all

All nations could share a equal amount of things with eachother, and ethnic and religion would be a major role in this play. The seperate religions could teach eachother new ways of things, or make one mega religion that combines parts of every religion together. They could come up with ways of food to mix with eachother, like majority rules. Every country could have the same amount of land, also creating new countries. Revolution wouldnt be necessary because people can have their say in what should happen. And every country will have their own seperate democratic leader. If one goes against it, they will get punished, taken out, and prosecuted.
The Buddha was an atheist.

If you wish to accept, please state so in the comments. The first round will be for acceptance. In this debate I will be arguing that the Buddha believed in the Supreme, Unknown, Absolute, all-creating Causeless Cause that some call God. While the Buddha did not specifically refer to It as God, I argue that He nevertheless believed in It. The burden of proof will be shared equally. Pro must argue that the Buddha was an atheist - that is, that He did not believe in God. Pro will not fulfill his or her resolution by arguing that the Buddha was an agnostic. I do not offer any formal definition of God beyond the above, because (as I will argue in this debate), the essence of God is unknowable. Even the attributes I used to describe this entity are not adaquate. I will not be equating God with Nirvana or Dharma. I will also not be using the Buddha's references to the devas as proof that He believed in God, as the devas are not considered to be Supreme, Unknown, or Absolute in any sense. Despite this, however, the concept of Brahma will be discussed in this debate. I assert that the Buddha rejected the notions the Hindus of the day had of Brahma, and instead taught of a kind of "Unmanifest Brahma" (which is more fitting of the above description of God). This is the only way I will incorporate the devas into my argument. For those unfamiliar with some terms in Buddhism, I have defined a few commonly used terms below. I will be using the Sanskrit terms when writing, but when quoting from the Buddha or from His teachings, I will be using the Pali terms.Dharma/Dhamma - (Sanskrit, Pali) the Religion, Truth, Law, Doctrine, the right way of living, etc.; there is no single meaning to this word and is difficult to define. It can largely depend on context. Tathagata - the title the Buddha uses when referring to Himself, meaning the Perfect One, or one who has fully arrived at a condition that cannot be described. Deva - some heavenly being that is not omniscient or omnipotent; an inhabitant of another world. Not the topic of this debate. Nirvana/Nibbana - (Sanskrit, Pali) the state acheived by the conquest of craving or extinguishment of the fires of desire; literally "blown out" or "the going out" of a flame. Other words may appear later on, and I can explain them when it is necessary. While I will quote from the scripture of the Buddha, it should be known that I have derived many of my ideas and arguments from The God of Buddha by Jamshed Fozdar. I will obviously not plagarize his work, but I will draw from the compiled teachings of the Buddha that he presents in it.
The American notion of illegal immigration was born out of racism

The resolution of this debate states that "The American notion of illegal immigration was born out of racism". This resolution means that the American conception of illegal immigration was created by a historical process that was essentially racist. In this case, racism is defined as anything which believes in, or perpetuates the existence of, the idea that certain races are inherently inferior or less worthy than some other race.The first round of this debate is for acceptance. The second round will begin with my opening argument, followed by back and forth rebuttals throughout the remainder of the debate. Voters should vote for the debater who has a preponderance of the evidence (i.e. when weighted on balance, the arguments favor their side over the opposing side).
gun restirictions should be lessened

the problems with increasing gun restictions are.. 1. it disarms those who might be able to stop a shooter before he causes so many deaths 2. shooters are going to get guns anyway 3. guns dont kill people. in the shooting at the theatre a while ago, the shooter was the only person who had a gun on him. we all know how bad this turned out. If someone in the crowd had a gun, they could of dropped the shooter before he caused as much trouble. but as i said before, only one person had a gun, the shooter. this is because of the high restrictions on guns. also if someone is willing to kill dozens of innocent people and often themselves, then they are willing to steal guns, break restrictions, or get guns from gangs or black markets. with the increasing gun restictions, we are only restricting the innocent people who lose the chance to be a hero and save lives because we tried and failed to prevent the shooter from getting a gun. finally guns dont kill people. this is a statement that we hear all of the time. i argue that people kill people because my pencil wont write my homework by itself. this is a smaller example but its the same idea. should we get rid of cars? more people die in car accidents than shootings. because of these points i think that we should lessen the severity of gun restrictions
Esports should be officially considered as a sport

Okay, I will rebut what my opponent has said in Round 2. My main problem with my opponent is that he seemed to not have read what I wrote. On multiple occasions, I find myself having to think for a long time what he means before concluding that he must have not read properly. I urge voters to take note of this. Anyhow, allow me to explain. My opponent starts off with questioning is chess a sport? Dude. I just said in Round 1 that chess for the most part, is not considered a sport. Did he not read this? Perhaps he just skimmed through... Then he says that hockey does not require you to go out. Yeah, but you definitely sweat right? I never said that it is a requirement of a sport that you must be outdoors. I said that sports have to fit our traditional views and a big part of these views are almost always that you have to go out and/or sweat. I never said that it was a strict REQUIREMENT. Then he said "video games represent things we do every day? No way! In your everyday lived, very few jobs require mouse control etc". Okay firstly, even if I did say that, what would be the significance of that? So what? I never said anything about how a video game should or should not represent something you do every day. The most I said was that any game teaches you important skills you can implement every day like perseverance, strategic thinking etc. And then yet again, my opponent accused me of saying that since esports does not have mental exertion it is disqualified as a sport. I am TOTALLY SPEECHLESS. WHEN DID I SAY THAT? I said that esports do not contain PHYSICAL exertion. Things like this make me feel extremely discouraged of debating with my opponent who doesn't seem to be able to read very well. I am sorry I am being somewhat rude but you can imagine how I feel when it seems my opponent doesnt even bother to read what I said and quoted stuff which I did not say and in some cases exactly opposite to what I said!
Esports should be officially considered as a sport

Is chess a sport? Most say it is. Does it sweat? Does it go out? Hockey does not require to be outdoors either or spend time in the sun. If those were required to become a sport half of the major sports would be eliminated like basketball or badminton. Also, many gaming tournaments are held outside. Video games represent things we do every day? No way! In your everyday lives, very few jobs require the mouse control or reflexes video games need. If chess, the 1500 year old game, developed over centuries is not a "traditional sport", than what is? Besides, in the modern era, a lot of tradition is dead. Christmas is no longer a celebration of Christ, but it is more of a time to spend with friends and family. Also, you pointed out that esports do not have mental exertion, and due to one wrong reason, esports are disqualified. Is wrestling a sport? Is boxing a sport? Both named do not require strategy, or minimal strategy. If minimal strategy, AKA throwing punches at each other's face is enough to qualify, the wrist movement from the mouse or buttons is enough to deem it as physical exertion. Also, if you want sources: http://www.cbssports.com... http://www.sportaccord.com...
Esports should be officially considered as a sport

What is a sport? According to many resources (listed below), qualifications of a "sport" includes:1. An element of competition2. Requiring physical and mental concentration and exertion (Athletic and mental ability)3. Should not rely on factors of luck, almost all skill4. There has to be some form of strategy, not relied on pure strengthLeague of Legends and Counter Strike Global Offensive are two examples of popular, competitive esports. Both games implement a competitve scene with rows of bleachers for faithful fans, hardworking teammates, and two teams fighting for victory. In League of Legends, two teams aim to destroy each other's "nexus", a large crystal much like a base. For CSGO, Terrorists plant a bomb and defend it, while the opposition aspires to defuse it. Although video games do not require physical capability (the main arguement against esports), the amount of decision making, mouse and keyboard coordination, focus on the game, and prediction is a huge factor. Also, I believe this is the most faded rule listed. Chess, a game that most people consider a sport due to its competition, strategy, and cognition, does not involve physical exertion, much like League and Counter Strike. In fact, chess is a remarkably close cousin tp these two video games, sharing multiple properties, even the elo system to rank players. When one examines the vast ocean of sports, he will see skill in every game. Professional basketball, football, baseball players and many more dedicate hours upon hours on their sport, refining their skill. If sports were based on luck, why would they practice? Like Adrian Petersen, Stephen Curry, or Alex Rodriguez, professional players from esports spend most of their day parcticing their mechanics. Professional League player Yi Liang Peng from TSM spends most of his hours playing LoL at his team's gaming house. Esports outrank and sport in terms of strategy. Why do people enjoy video games? It is because one can do unlimited things behind a screen, unable to accomplish in real life. Because of this, the strategy, communication, and synergy of one team can decide a win or loss. Afterall, video games are designed to give an equal opportunity for each player to outplay each other.Esports like League of Legends and CSGO fit almost all expectations and qualifications of becoming a sport. The competition between teams is just as concentrated as other classic sports, the mental focus on the game is great, there is no luck involved due to damages being an exact number, rather than a dice roll, and Esports are the kings of strategy and playstyle.
The egg came first.

My opponent does make a valid point. Through the entire history of the "chicken" as a species, it has gone through such distinctive changes that what it evolved from may not be recognizable to us as a chicken. The same goes for humans and every species for that matter. So yes, the "chicken" as a species is not a static thing. However, the individual chicken is. On a genealogical basis, the chicken has seen many changes and perhaps it did evolve from a dinosaur, but the ones that I got in my backyard are most certainly static chickens, as are their eggs. On an individual basis, we are not evolving right now. Our DNA is not changing as you read this (barring some extreme horrific microwave action going on around you, which if that's the case, you shouldn't be worrying to much about this debate right now. You should be seeking medical attention). Any changes in DNA that occur, would do so in our offspring. The same goes for chickens. My opponents argument rests on the fact that evolution is an ongoing, fluid situation which I don't dispute, but what my opponent fails to recognize is the fulcrum that enables that change is in regeneration. In the case of the chicken, that change would only be found in the egg. When I get woken up at 3:15am tomorrow morning, it will not be the clucking of a dinosaur that wakes me, it will be a species that we as humans recognize as a chicken. The chickens that we know today were conceived by two red junglefowl. Those two red junglefowl gave birth to a chicken, that chicken most certainly came from an egg.
The egg came first.

Well, actually; neither came first. This is a false dichotomy. You see, there is no such thing as a chicken, nor is there such thing as a chicken egg. Let me explain. Chickens aren't a static thing. They evolve over time. They are constantly changing. So are their eggs and the contents of those eggs, too. Many millions of years ago, there was a dinosaur. It looked vaguely chicken-like, but it had teeth and claws on its "wings." If you saw one at night, you might briefly mistake it for a chicken. Over time, though, this creature changed. Its teeth disappeared, as did the claws on its wings. It gained the ability to fly, and then lost it again. At what point did it become a chicken? It still isn't a chicken, remember? There is no such thing as a chicken. The eggs you buy at the store come from a small dinosaur that is still in the process of becoming what it will eventually become. It is the first of its kind. It is the last of its kind. Its children will not be chickens, any more than it is. They are beasts on the spectrum, categorized by we humans as "chicken" but no more chicken than dinosaur or incredibly advanced amphibian or hyper-evolved protozoa. There was no first chicken. There was no first egg. We could arbitrarily draw the line anywhere we wanted to, summarily deeming that this is the first chicken or the first egg. But, in the end, that decision would be arbitrary. The creature we are about to eat is what it is, regardless of where we draw that line. And, this is important, the being just on the other side of that line, regardless of where we draw it, is more "chicken" than any other creature. If you were to see one, you'd say, "that's a chicken". Either that, or we've drawn the line so far from what we think of as "chicken" that the creatures on both sides would fail this simple test. False dichotomies of this kind are common. Which is better, conservative or liberal? Answer: yes. Which is worse, rape or murder? Answer: no. Life is far more complex than "yes" or "no" and "better" and "worse."
The egg came first.

The egg came first, laid by a bird that was not a chicken- Neil DeGrasse Tyson. What we know as a chicken today, evolved from the red junglefowl. One day, two red junglefowl (proto chicken) mated and the mommy proto chicken (not a chicken) laid an egg. Within that egg, the minute changes in DNA caused a mutation which gave birth to the first chicken. Any changes in DNA, will occur in the egg. So, it is my firm belief that the egg came first.
Is the U.S. going to fall because of it's debt

Sorry I was not clear enough, this is my first debate I have ever started. I mean that the U.S. economy will fall, not necessarily the nation as a whole. As for the rebuttal you can include it in R2 if you wish. The best of luck to you Blade-of-Truth. The U.S. has a major problem coming up, Baby Boomers. As of February 10th, 2014 10,000 will retire a day, all the way up to 2030. The U.S. has made financial promises to the Baby Boomers that are worth tens of trillions of dollars, even without all the current debt and financial problems we currently have, paying that much would be nearly impossible. The thing is, we do have financial problems and massive debt so this sum would be impossible to pay off, leading to a near instant destruction of the economy.
Is the U.S. going to fall because of it's debt

I accept and will maintain the position that the U. S. is not going to fall because of its debt. I will use this round for acceptance and eagerly await my opponents initial argument. I ask my opponent if he would like me to hold rebuttals until R3 or if I may present them along with my argument in R2? Lastly, the resolution seems to encompass the U. S. as a whole - not a specific element of the U. S. and so I will approach my position accordingly.
I am not a troll!

#1 Mexi was not used in the Mexican American War unless you throw me a link that states that, cause my homies at wikipedia say there is no such ethnic slur and a simple google search doesn't pop-up anything about it being derogatory. Stereotyping "brown" people from Latino based countries calling them all Mexican would be derogatory but that is not what was presented. (I know wikipedia isn't a true resource to reference.) #2 This racist troll will continue to troll with derogatory statements and slurs. Do we even need to go into that trolls tend to throw around slurs more often than not cause they don't have a conscience in what they say because they hide behind their monitor. #3 Just comment that he is a troll and hopefully he will give up. Oh and he is trolling the terms of service about not using derogatory comments and profanity.
I am not a troll!

#1 your statment that i can't say japs food because it is considered racist but you can say mexi food is outrageous. the term japs is the same as the term mexi a shortened version of the entire word you may say it is different because japs was used in in world war 2 as an undermining term used against the japanese well sir the term mexi was used consistantly in the mexican american war as a discriminary term twards the mexicans therfore just because it is not a popular racial slr dose not mean there is any difference in the way it is used. #2 i stand by my original statment u can't just claim you live in asia and your not asian because you dont' want ot be a slant eyed nigger. #3 FUUCK CHINA
I am not a troll!

#1 I live in California and we shorten Mexican food for mexi food in a non racist way, just shortening it for convenience. His trolling argument is if I can say mexi food he can say japs food. First off japs food has a derogatory term in it and could be argued as racist. If I said beaner food in the place of mexi food then it would be on the same playing field of racist vs racist statements. Mexi food is clearly not racist when japs food is racist he is just trolling the argument. (I was only using the derogatory language to prove a point, and in no way used it to be offensive.) #2 I cannot remember how it started but in any case the argument here was Russians are Asians. I was stating that Russians live in Asian but they are not considered part of the "Asian ethnicity". #3 You can hear inflection difference in your voice when you smile while talking. Whether its sub-conscience or in fact changing pitch of your voice I am not sure but this troll likes to argue everything and spit out things as fact when they are not fact at all. Try talking to someone on the phone while smiling and when not and see if there is a difference. #4 This troll wanted to make a debate on trolling while trolling. Enough said.
I am not a troll!

i am clearly not a troll, what proof would come at me bro that would prove i could ever possibly be a troll just because i state true facts like if people can say mexi food and not be racist i can say japs food. also a true argument is that all russians that live in part of russia that is in asia are asian. you can't pick and chose what ehnicity you are just because you feel like not being a slant eyed asian go learn some math scrub. last topic these niggas think they can hear my facial expretion in my voice i asked them which of my eyebrows were raised by the sound of my voice and they said nothing my point is they are the trolls counter argument made!!!
I am not a troll!

Bubble Pop! Bubble Pop! Cheombuteo ttokgatji nal bakkuryeo haji ma Animyeon charari dareun saram manna (U uuu neo) tudeoldaeji ma (U uuu neo) Bamneutge nagaseo nolmyeon jom eottae Eojjeoda jeonhwa an badeumyeon eottae (U uuu hey) Wae jakku geurae neo nareul mot mitni (Ooh Boy) neoege nal matchujin ma (Hey Boy) naege deo baraji ma (My Boy) geopumcheoreom geojit mameul Bubble Bubble Bubble Pop! Bubble Bubble Pop! Pop! (Ooh Boy) inneun geudaero saenggakhae bwa (Hey Boy) boineun daero nal barabwajwo (My Boy) geopumcheoreom geojit mameul Bubble Bubble Bubble Pop! Bubble Bubble Pop! Pop! [ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsmode.com... ] Mareul jom yeppeuge hae useul ttaen yamjeonhage Yeollageun jom jajuhae (Huh, Huh! ) Neona jalhae Hey (Hey Hey Hey) Bubble Bubble Pop! Pop! (u uuu) Utdaga gakkeum uulhamyeon eottae Jotaga gapjagi sirheojim eottae (U uuu neo) Waejakku geurae neo nareul moreuni (Ooh Boy) neoege nal matchujin ma (Hey Boy) naege deo baraji ma (My Boy) geopumcheoreom geojit mameul Bubble Bubble Bubble Pop! Bubble Bubble Pop! Pop! (Ooh Boy) inneun geudaero saenggakhae bwa (Hey Boy) boineun daero nal barabwajwo (My Boy) geopumcheoreom geojit mameul Bubble Bubble Bubble Pop! Bubble Bubble Pop! Pop! Neoege nal matchujin ma Naege deo baraji ma Geopumcheoreom geojit mameul Bubble Bubble Bubble Pop! Bubble Bubble Pop! Pop! (Ooh Boy) inneun geudaero saenggakhae bwa (Hey Boy) boineun daero nal barabwajwo (My Boy) geopumcheoreom geojit mameul Bubble Bubble Bubble Pop! Bubble Bubble Pop! Pop!