BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders.

There are a few problems that the Pro presents The first is the use of the word "Would" Would is defined as the following used in auxiliary function to express probability or presumption in past or present time "would have won if I had not tripped" That is defined by merriam-webster This means that the Pro is stating that 115th congress will not should pass a policy Next is the use of the phrase "this house" Here are some problems with that First is the fact that it is literally impossible the 115th congress is not in session and when Congress reconvenes it will be after January 3rd this means that it will be the 116th congress in session. The House writes on December 20, 2018 https://www. House. Gov/legislative-activity A new Congress begins at noon January 3 of each odd-numbered year following a general election, Unless it designates a different day by law. A Congress lasts for two years, With each year constituting a separate session. A congressional calendar is an agenda or list of business awaiting possible action by the House or Senate. Second is that even if there was an emergency session of congress the current house has no wish to reduce student debt empirics" show Newsrepublic in August of this year writes Nearly everything DeVos has done inside the Education Department has shown indifference (if not worse) for college students, Particularly those most likely to struggle with debt. While Trump"s budgets incorporate his income-based repayment concept, DeVos last year proposed canceling the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, The most generous income-based repayment that the government offers, Which forgives payments after 10 years for those who choose public-sector careers like law enforcement, Social work, Teaching, Or legal defense. This means that the 115th congress will not do anything in concerns with education policy You are going to voting against the Pro because of the Errors they have made policy making requires one to be precise with words and the Pro"s proposed policy has to many holes. To recap The first is that when the pro uses the word would instead of should it means we are now debating about whether or not the bill will pass not should it The second is that when the Pro used the phase "This House" that means we are talking about the current congress which is the 115th however they are not currently in session and unless there is an emergency the next time congress convenes it will be the 116th congress not the 115th congress and like I said before when the Pro uses the word would all I have to prove is that the 115th congress won't pass the policy I do that in two ways 1. Its actually impossible no bill can be passed before January 3rd and by that time according to law it will be the 116th congress 2. Even if there is an emergency session of congress the newsweek evidence proves that no education policy will pass a republican controlled congress
This House would enact a one time policy that erases all student debt from private lenders.

Good morning. I would first like to start off by defining some terms. For this debate, I will be defining This House as the United States Congress. I will be defining student debt from private companies as debt that is owed by students to non government lenders such as SallieMae, College Ave, Etc. I will now start by explaining what this one time policy would look like. This one time policy would be a proposed bill that would eliminate student debt from private lenders. Students who are currently studying in university will not benefit from this bill. If the one time bill if successful, It will then be re-written to be enacted every ten years or so. This bill will cover students who recently graduated from undergraduate studies and those who have been graduated for longer who still have a sufficient amount of debt to pay off. I would like to move on to my three points of positive matter. 1) This bill would help strengthen the economy. Currently, College graduates are working endlessly just to pay off their student loans. With interest rates being way too high, It's ridiculous how many people have to work to repay student loans instead of working for a house, Car, Family, Etc. According to a study conducted in 2018 by CNBC, 32% of Americans said college debt prevented or delayed them from buying a home, Including 36 percent of millenials, 26 percent of Gen Xers, And 26 percent of boomers. Once this bill were to pass, Citizens wouldn't really need to worry paying their debts. Instead, They could use the money to help our economy. The more flexibility that people have in their finances, The more bound they are to spend on items, Which in turn will help the economy. 2) This bill would encourage young students to go to school. Students in today's world don't want to go to college, Why? Because of the crazy high amounts of students who graduate with debt. I almost decided not to go to college, Because of the amount of money it took. If this bill were to pass, We would be able to encourage our younger students that college doesn't have to end with student debt. Many more students would be encouraged to go to school. This ties along with my third and final point of positive matter. 3) This bill would gain the trust of students. A vast majority of students according to NBC, When supporting a politician, One of the main issues that is examined is education. Students would want and support politicians that advocate for them and help them make the college process a whole lot easier. If this bill is passed, I can safely assume that we would get a higher rating of support from our student voters, As they see that government does care about the students. To summarize, This bill proposed by Congress would eliminate all student debt and benefit the students by strengthening the economy, Encouraging young students to go to college, And gaining the trust of the student vote in government. I believe that the Opposition will not have arguments that benefit the students. This is why I urge the Panel to vote in favor of the Government. Thank you.
Kobe Bryant is better than Lebron James!

First of all, I'm playing devil's advocate. Second of all, I'm going to say Kobe Bryant only has 5 rings as 3 with Shaquille O' Neal and two with Paul Gasol. Also Kobe Bryant has had six years more in the NBA than Lebron James. Lebron James is a beast of a man. He is a powerful atheletic force who has beaten the best of the best. He has almost single-handedly brought down powerful basketball dynasties. Let's look at some stats. MVP: This one is a win for Lebron James. He has had two MVP's in 9 years while Kobe has had 13 years to produce one MVP. I mean Lebron James also won consecutive MVP's on his 7th and 8th year while Kobe won his one MVP in his 12th year. Lebron James clearly has won this category. The MVP award is for a true mark of greatness. Many super talented players have won all kinds of things but the MVP award is truly special. It shows who is truly great and is the most valuable player in that year. + 1 Point for Lebron "The King" James. Strength: This is no contest. Lebron James is much stronger and more powerful. He can drive right through the paint without fear of being injured while Kobe Bryant has to go around and shoot the clutch. Strength is an important aspect of being able to refrain from injury and having the ability to get into the paint to score without worrying about anything. Not even the Kobe Bryant under jersey #8 was able to have as much strength. + 1 Point for Lebron James. + 2 for Lebron James. In my next round I will refute all arguments for my opponent and will talk about the following contests: Skill, Clutch, Talent, and a few other things.
Kobe Bryant is better than Lebron James!

Kobe Bryant is the best player in he league by far. He has the experience and the leadership it takes to go to the finals just as he has done numerous times in the past. Kobe has proved that he can still score and put up points on a consistent basis. there has yet to be an injury that has caused Bryant to miss more than a weeks worth of games at a time. He has scored 40+ points recently three nights in a row and he has done so with an arthritic finger and knee problems. There is no other player in the league with his talent, skill or experience. Some may argue that he has had help to earn 6 rings but everyone needs a little help don't they? Michael Jordan had Scottie Pippen and Magic Johnson had James Worthy. Everyone had some form of help. Lebron James has yet to do anything that Kobe has achieved other than score a lot of points. Even when Lebron scores a lot of point he scores 30, 40 points only to lose the game in the 4th quarter because he can not close out a game like a true superstar should be able to do.
China would of been better off under the Nationalists (Led by Chang-Kai-Shek)

Rules: 1. I will argue that a Nationalist China would be better for the people. 2. My opponent shall argue otherwise.3. For the purpose of the debate, it will be led by Chang Kai Shek.4. Sun-yat-sens transitional government plan applies.5. Evidence on Taiwans aftermath is allowed.6. We will be of the assumption that tridemism is the political doctrine. 7. You may not make hypothetical military assumptions, since this is a philosophy debate, and most claims would most likely have little backing
China would of been better off under the Nationalists (Led by Chang-Kai-Shek)

Extend all Arguments. If you honestly think I'm going to debate someone that says "his sources are going to be unrealiable" than you are wrong. You are not the person to judge if my sources are reliable or not. That is the voters decision, I was expecting a good debate but I was wrong.I also want a good debate, which is why I took the time to inform you that Chinese government sites and any DPRK website is without a doubt unreliable. I could of said nothing, and let the audience undoubtebly realize this. Anyways, here is the press freedom of China and DPRK. As a 14 year old living in the states, I would avoid Maoism and Juche. You are to young to be worshipping Kim Jung Un. If you want to debate me on that, please feel free. http://en.rsf.org...
China would of been better off under the Nationalists (Led by Chang-Kai-Shek)

Argument 1: Cultural Revolution If China had been led by the nationalists, then it is likely the cultural revolution would of never happened. A revolution which displaced millions, and destroyed 1000's of years of Chinese culture. Not only that, but many who were not communist "lackeys" were often tortured and raped, at Mao Zedong's "consent". State sponsored anarchy at its finest. http://www.youtube.com...http://www.history.com...http://www.mega.nu...Argument 2: Success of TaiwanIn case some of you don't know much Chinese history, for 23 years, the communists were at war with the ruling nationalists. The nationalists believed that China should become a democracy, after a transition through military rule. After WW2, the nationalist army was completely destroyed, and Mao Zedong saw a chance to seize power. The communists defeated the nationalist army, and 2 million nationalist citizen and government personnel fled to Taiwan. Today, Taiwan is known as one of the 4 Asian tigers, and has one of the highest standards of livings in the world. Not only that, but it is one of the most democratic and liberal nations on earth. Instead of Communism, they used capitalism and democracy to achieve their goals, doing so without the democide of 50 million people. Is it unreasonable to assume the mainland could of had a similar fate? http://www.gallup.com...Argument 3: Great Leap ForwardThere is a evident problem with both communist and one party states. You have to put your economic future in the hands of a couple high ranking officials. During the great leap forward, Mao's attempt to get rid of China's agrarian reliance, resulted in the deaths of an estimated 18-45 million. Most of the deaths were the result of government democide, due to the protests and riots of the people. Even though China had a population boost, the great leap forward was one of the saddest tragedys in human history, and killed China's economy. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...http://www.sjsu.edu...Now I'm sure my opponent will bring up many cases against the nationalists, so I will get more in depth next round. I am also certain that this particular opponent may attempt to use state sponsored media or websites for his sources, and I will remind him now, that the reliability of those sources are quite low.
China would of been better off under the Nationalists (Led by Chang-Kai-Shek)

1.) I will be debating that China under Chairman Mao Tse-Tung was the better path for the Chinese people by using evidence of China's rapid modernization and its jump to a world power2.) I will debate that Chiang Kai Shek would have turned China into a Nazi style nation by using evidence of the Sino-German cooperation3.) I will debate that Sun Yat-sen's transitional government plan does not apply
Segregation

I think segregation would be a positive step in today's world - at least temporarily. I will argue that segregation, most specifically cultural segregation could be a positive move. Other types of segregation exist, however, and I will not be defending them all with the same weight, but possibly still providing arguments defending those other types of segregation as well. My support towards the idea of segregation is relatively recent and does not come from bias or hatred, but a genuine belief that it would benefit mankind. Good luck, I'm looking forward to have my ideas tested.
Origin of Life | Biblical Creation

How can the universe be 6, 000 years old if: The oldest tree in the world is 9, 550 years old. The civilization of Mesopotamia is 8, 000 years old. (We also have writings from them. The Nahal Mishar Hoard Crown is 6, 500 years old. The Tower of Jericho is 11, 000 years old. The Chinchorro Mummies are 7, 050 years old. The Fort Rock Shoes are 11, 000 years old. The G"bekli Tepe is 11, 300 years old. The El Castillo Cave Paintings are 40, 800 years old. The Bone Flute is 43, 000 years old. The Krapina Eagle Talon Jewelry is a whopping 130, 000 years old. So yes, Please explain to me how the hell the universe is only 6, 000 years old when we have pieces of jewelry that are 130, 000 years old.
This is a better desire poem than Sonnet 141

You misrepresent my argument. I am talking about whether or not desire and empotion is in Shakespeare's poem, not that he presents it in a matter of fact manner. In fact, I don't think you understand what subjective and objective means. Feelings are, by definition, subjective. There are no subjective feelings, just feelings. I demonstrated the complexity in the desire and the emotions present. If you could go a debate without putting words in my mouth, I'd appreciate it.You didn't show that Shakespeare is only presenting emotion, and you didn't show that you are presenting more.
This is a better desire poem than Sonnet 141

We are two beings arguing over a subjective matter. I am trying to show, in the most objective way possible, the emotion in how the desire is presented. You say something next about how I elevate Shakespeare to a God status. I'm actually not that big of a fan of Shakespeare. I like his work, and I think his work is better than yours, but I haven't read one of his plays all the way through.I'm not an art critic, I have absolutely no standing in the field of art whatsoever. My opinions on Shakespeare will not threaten my standing in any circle. Thanks for saying I am lying and being dishonest, though. I always love it when you do that. Though you must wonder if thou doth protest too much?I am not saying that is is bad to try and borrow off Shakespeare. He has a recognizable style and an effective one at that. However, most people don't have the arrogance to say that they are better than Shakespeare. May I remind you the BoP is on you to show that your poetry is better than Sonnet 141. I'd suggest actually making an argument next round.
This is a better desire poem than Sonnet 141

con says "Well, whether or not you feel desire is rather unimportant" you are completely wrong this is all about feeling desire -and not just intellectualizing desire-in the case of Shakespeare What I pick up from con is his utter reluctance to go against tradition and orthodoxy to say of the, best so called poet in the English language is in this case,he is inferior to deans poem Shakespeare has been elevated to such to god status such that other better works are ignored I will hazard a guess and say con does feel the desire in deans poem more than in sonnet 141- but he is so for fearful of loosing credibility from the standard view orthodoxy that he wont say so con says "You can state that your poem is so very unlike Shakespeare, but I fear it isn't so" what rubbish I could say dean is like Milton as Milton uses "thy" in many of his sonnets
This is a better desire poem than Sonnet 141

Well, whether or not you feel desire is rather unimportant, as that is purely a subjective line of reasoning. I admit that you see no passion in Sonnet 141, but I was addressing why. The part that you take from my quote was me stating your argument. I don't agree with that statement. I was showing you just lack the ability to connect with this artwork, but the emotion is still there. I don't often find deaths in artworks to be all that emotionally stimulating, yet I do not deny that the emotion can still be there. The next bit of your argument stems from your "misunderstanding" of the words I chose, so I won't respond.You can state that your poem is so very unlike Shakespeare, but I fear it isn't so. The constant use of thy, thee, and the scrambling of the English language to appear more deep and important all point to what I like to call "Shakespeare Envy". Your last argument can be summarized with "I'm right and you must be emotionally stunted to disagree." Don't worry, by the way, I pretty much stated you were unable to connect with Sonnet 141. However, I gave support for my argument other than 'Well I am right and I can't believe you disagree'. You have the beginning to a sentence there at the end, but it ends rather abruptly. Not sure where you were going with that.
This is a better desire poem than Sonnet 141

Hi con this really just comes down to what one feels ie the experience in reciting dean and sonnet 141-forgeting all the intellectual dross I have tried to condense the what I think is you main points down to this you say "From your language, that he is just stating desire but we do not feel it, I discern you are failing to, or cannot, empathize with the desire Shakespeare is portraying." the point I made in my example was that Shakespeare sonnet 141 has no real desire or passion as you say correctly "he is just stating desire but we do not feel " quite correct Shakespeare is just stating desire and that is the difference between is sonnet 141 and deans poem in deans poem we feel the desire directly from the way dean has written the poem in speaking it allowed the reciter feels hears the desire all the reciter gets from reciting sonnet 141 is nothing just words con says " The entire poem [deans]seems to be trying so hard to replicate Shakespeare " you are quite wrong there deans is as far away from sonnet 141as the sun is from the moon there is no comparison deans poem is not trying to replicate Shakespeare's any reader can see that they are like chalk and cheese this really just comes down to what one feels ie the experience in reciting dean and sonnet 141-forgeting all the intellectual dross Con I can not believe that if you have read deans poem out aloud you have not felt the desire If you cannot feel the desire in deans poem directly from the recitation then you must be stunted in some way-no offense intended con I cannot believe that you feel desire in reading sonnet 141 if you do then I cannot believe that you were blown away by the greater desire in deans poem that maybe so but compared to dean poem sonnet
This is a better desire poem than Sonnet 141

Some claim that Sonnet 141 of Shakespeare is a great desire poem I argue that this is a better desire poem than Sonnet 141 of Shakespeare http://www.scribd.com... Some claim that Sonnet 141 of Shakespeare is a great desire poem http://www.poetrysoup.com... Sonnet 141 by: William Shakespeare In faith, I do not love thee with mine eyes, For they in thee a thousand errors note; But 'tis my heart that loves what they despise, Who in despite of view is pleased to dote. Nor are mine cars with thy tongue's tune delighted, Nor tender feeling to base touches prone, Nor taste, nor smell, desire to be invited To any sensual feast with thee alone; But my five wits, nor my five senses can Dissuade one foolish heart from serving thee, Who leaves unswayed the likeness of a man, Thy proud heart's slave and vassal wretch to be. Only my plague thus far I count my gain, That she that makes me sin awards me pain. compare this from sonnet 141 "Thy proud heart's slave and vassal wretch to be. Only my plague thus far I count my gain, That she that makes me sin awards me pain." Shakespeare is just stating his desire but we do not feel it experience it now read this out aloud " Oh that my beloved woudst show that full moon face to I That I couldst upon that beauty myself to die you can instantly hear the difference in emotion these lines are bursting with desire where l Shakespeare sonnet 147 is just words- no desire at all
Should we hunt animals

Oh, yeah? They aren't being driven out? Then what are people doing when they cut down forests. The animals living there are either captured, killed or forced to move away. You say animals are given time time to grow before hunting. That is because if they don't, that particular species will face extinction. Animals can think and are smart but against the strength of Humans, they can only run. They can take care of themselves if they can feed themselves. But, we are killing what they feed on. In this case they die of starvation or cannibalism. Lions were on all time low in all over the world. Especially India. It seems that you didn't read " individual animal species" in my last argument. Only one human speicy exists, so if we have to compare we should compare it with only one individual speicy. And if there are animals that number more than Humans, then they are farmed and grown in incubators and factories. Hens are more than Humans, because we cultivate them. https://youtu.be... Watch this and then you will understand why chickens number in such mass quantities. Thank You for letting me express my opinions. It was a good conversation and a great experience debating with you.
Should we hunt animals

But they aren't being driven out that's why we have the hunting seasons to give them time to recover, animals are smarter than most people think I have seen it, once hunting season draws near the deer are more easily scared and don't come near the house. They aren't driven out because they just go to where they know there aren't hunting blinds. So animals can take care of themselves and as for you comment on humans having a higher population than any animal on earth here's some counter arguments. There are 19 billion chickens in the world, And animals in total make up more biomass on the plant than humans, humans average out at about 100 billion where animals are around 100 trillion. https://www.quora.com... https://www.npr.org...