BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald J. Trump should be impeached and removed from office immediately.

Donald Trump is a threat to not only the integrity of the United States, but the entire world. He has repeatedly shown that he is an unstable, immature, and unqualified individual who should not hold the position of US president. For lack of a better word, the US president has entered a 'dick measuring contest' with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un after posting an immature statement on Twitter: "North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the "Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times." Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!" This trend of increasingly desperate rants is one that, if left unchecked, could lead to a nuclear war, despite dismissal of the situations seriousness. The president must be removed from office in order to prevent global nuclear war.
Donald J. Trump should be impeached and removed from office immediately.

Argument: Trump cannot be impeached. Has not done anything illegal, or has committed an offense that could bring about an impeachment, for the mentions of: " This trend of increasingly desperate rants is one that, if left unchecked, could lead to a nuclear war, despite dismissal of the situations seriousness. The president must be removed from office in order to prevent global nuclear war."Trump is taking caution, he is not necessarily trying to provoke Kim Jong Un, he simply responded to his announcement. Kim Jong Un is very likely to ignore the statements and he will continue on with his country's business. Even with that, he has offered to be open to South Korea, our ally. If Trump were to be impeached, he would have to be impeached for something reasonable, something that everyone including me and fellow supporters would have to agree on, but at this certain point in time, nothing of high concern or level to be used in a impeachment.Rebuttal: You should have added examples of what you find to be quote "unstable, immature, and unqualified". This simply has no evidence to support your claim.Conclusion:The con person has to provide better arguments. His opening argument was open for me to break down and rebut.
Experts' Tier R1: In a fair fight, Mace Windu would likely defeat Yoda.

This debate is part of the Experts' Tier of the official DDO Tournament.Topic:In a fair fight, Mace Windu would likely defeat Yoda.Rules:1. Debaters may pull from canon texts, the official Star wars movies, and Wookieepedia to construct their arguments2. BOP: Pro must show that Mace Windu would likely defeat Yoda; Con must show that Yoda would likely defeat Mace Windu.3. Any forfeit constitutes a 7-point lossDefinitions:Fair Fight - a fight in which neither competitor has any special advantage other than what they would normally be able to do. In a fair fight the rules apply equally to all contestants.Likely - indicating probability and/or plausibilityDefeat - to win victory over. This does not mean Windu must kill Yoda, only render him unable to continue or force him to concede the battle.Structure:R1: AcceptanceR2: Core Cases (no rebuttals)R3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals and Crystallization (no new arguments, evidence, or responses)Context:Mace Windu: http://starwars.wikia.com...Yoda: http://starwars.wikia.com...Thanks:To Ninja for what promises to be a nerdtastic debate and to TUF for organizing this tournament.
People are too dependent on technology.

“Not knowing how to add because you have a calculator is not an excuse.” Excuse for what? For not knowing how to build a ship? How to build a rocket? The progression of technology is subtle. One step back or forward looks very small, but the large change from simple shipbuilding to rocket ship is very large. Your two points are centered around 1) knowing survival skills that are increasingly immaterial, and 2) knowing a method of simple arithmetic. The knowledge described as "lost" is not lost at all. It just becomes more trivial over time.
People are too dependent on technology.

Technology is a continuum. Small changes of knowledge building bit-by-bit standing on the foundation of the last. Looking at one end of the continuum and lamenting the loss of knowledge at an earlier point ignores that knowledge to get to this end has been incorporated. If I don"t know how to hunt today, relying on steady supplies from a grocery store, it could be said that I have lost knowledge. I don"t know how to shoot a duck. But, does a duck hunter who normally uses a Winchester know how to use a bow? How to make arrows? How to smelt metal for arrowheads? Hell, does he know how to make gunpowder? Each of these technologies have been built over time, the most recent man using the best available technology at his disposal. Plugging equations into a calculator, as you discuss, is the next step in simply math. The algorithms to complete the equations were similar "new" at some point. Understanding the underlying technologies of all things is not practical. Drawing some arbitrary line of what previous technological understanding was necessary ignores the complexity of even distant past technologies.
People are too dependent on technology.

Technology is a great thing which has led mankind from hunter gatherers roaming from place to place into the dominant species of the planet. However as technology has advanced we as a society in general have lost the need for basic survival skills and knowledge. How often is that when people get lost or stranded for any considerable length of time that they perish? Granted today as a result of technology people aren't often lost or stranded for long but when they are they more often than not lack a basic knowledge of survival, which would enable them to survive. Our ancestors survived for centuries like that but in the modern world if the average person should somehow be cut off from society for a short period of time they tend to die, either of starvation, exposure or a number of other avoidable factors. Technology has enabled us to live longer, safer, more wholesome lives but as a society we are losing touch with our roots and the basic skills that allowed us to reach the heights at which we soar today.
Should all schools have a electronic tool(laptop,tablet,etc)

By all schools I will infer that you mean all public and private schools, If so then definitely not. The federal government should not have the right to place this kind of restrictions on private schools. If you mean public schools only then my answer stays the same. The amount of federal funding that would be needed to ensure every school gets an adequate amount of technology would be too much. Technology certainly helps in school but it would cost too much to implement it in all US schools.
Marriage is an outdated institution that no longer reflects modern society

Marriage no longer represents the institution it was intended to be. It has positives than it could be said about it, but I suggest that these are no longer relevant in modern societal context. One of the key points that supporters of marriage cite is the idea of marriage as backbone of family. Currently, the definition of a family is at it's most fluid. With single parents and homosexual couples on the rise, the concept that a "family" can only be a man and a woman has become antiquated. Also on the rise is divorce. This can easily be attributed to the lack of meaning in marriage vows these days. 'Till death do us part' no longer applies. Even if marriage were to be considered as a demonstration of feeling to others, what more does it say in today's society? People will live together, have children, and be seen as faithful and committed without the addition of marriage to it. What more is added by marriage as an institution? It should also be considered, if marriage (the physical presence of which is a piece of paper and a ring of metal) adds a significant amount to the relationship, what does that say to the relationship?
Marriage is an outdated institution that no longer reflects modern society

Thank you for creating this topic, Pro, and welcome to DDO. I look forward to a lively debate. As my opponent used his first round to state the rationale for his argument, and did not indicate that the first round was only for acceptance, I will assume I may proceed directly into my case. Pro has taken the position that marriage is no longer relevant in a modern societal context. I believe that with his statements, Pro is reaching far beyond any defensible position. Perhaps it could reasonably be argued that marriage has declined in importance, or that its meaning has evolved, but to pronounce it dead or doomed is hardly warranted. The data shows otherwise [1]. As the 2009 data from the CDC shows, yes there was a drop in the number of both births and marriages from 2008 to 2009, however this is a drop of only 3.7%. This still leaves over 2 million marriages taking place in just 2009 alone. The obvious question that Pro has to deal with is why something as expensive, time consuming, and stressful as marriage would be taking place more than 2 million times each year if it were really no longer relevant. The data additionally shows us that married couples on average produce more stable environments for child rearing, and that people in marriages tend to be more prosperous, well educated, and have longer lifespans [2][3][4]. There are of course risks with marriage, as with anything else. If the marriage is a high conflict and dysfunctional one, then the stress of it can actually cause greater health problems and shorter life. Nevertheless, marriage remains an extremely important institution in American/Western modern life, and is the most likely institution to bring about successful and psychologically healthy children - considerably more likely than cohabitation. 1) http://www.cdc.gov... 2) http://cleveland.cbslocal.com... 3) http://www.utexas.edu... 4) http://live.washingtonpost.com...
If you voted for Donald Trump you are racist.

My mother and grandparents on my father's side voted for Donald Trump. My mother has taught me to accept others regardless of their heritage and faith, so there is no question that she is a racist. Similarly, my grandparents always practiced the tolerance of others. Both my grandparents and my mother voted for Donald Trump primarily because of his plans for the economy and his experience as a businessman.My mother and grandparents had no intention of "voting for everything [Donald Trump] stands for." As I have said in my previous arguments, there is no ideal president; someone that can represent all the views and principles that we hold sacred, especially in an election like this; where you were forced to choose between a greedy, unsuccessful businessman and a corrupt politician. My mother and grandparents simply decided which candidate was the "greater of two evils," and decided that, because of his business credentials, he'd be a great president, useful for lowering our debt, bring back jobs to the American people, and help our economy grow.By assuming that all people who vote for Trump are racists, you assume that nearly half of America is racist, being that Trump won 46.1% of the popular vote. Pro's argument relies on the basis that "when you vote for someone you're voting for everything they stand for," only to retract that claim with "it doesn't mean that you agree with everything [the candidate] says." Pro's argument is very vague, failing to provide any evidence or claims further from those basic statements, and Pro fails to acknowledge or rebut my points on how this was a tough election where voters had to choose between two candidates, each possessing various flaws which made the decision for who to vote for ultimately a "greater of the two evils" sort of situation.
If you voted for Donald Trump you are racist.

"When a person as a voter decided to vote for Donald Trump, they are voting for everything he stands for. You cannot vote, for a couple of his policies."This statement is false. As I explained in my first argument, you may vote for someone, not because you accept all of their policies, but because you feel that they are the best candidate for their position. If I agree with Trump on certain subjects like economics and decide to vote with him, I am not automatically some bigoted racist who is one of the same with the Klu Klux Klan, just like how, if you vote for Hilary Clinton, you don't have to support her shady deals behind closed doors with Wallstreet, or support the massive riches that she accumulated with the proceedings from the Clinton Foundations.There will never be an election where one of the candidates is a "perfect" presidential nominee. If we do not vote for someone simply because they do not envelope all of the values and beliefs that we possess, then we, as Americans, are failing our duty of deciding who can best lead our country. Yes, we may have contrasting opinions in different topics, but that should not discourage us from voting for the candidate who will be our best assurance of improving our country and providing for the needs of all Americans.
If you voted for Donald Trump you are racist.

Very true, many people believe that the sole reason they voted for Trump was because of his policies. Therefore, they believe they are not racist. Racism is a spectrum, not all racists are out there wearing white robes. You have to look at this debate from a different perspective. This election was more than just, Hillary vs. Donald Trump, it was bigger than a "regular" election. Like I stated previously, racism is a spectrum. When a person as a voter decided to vote for Donald Trump, they are voting for everything he stands for. You cannot vote, for a couple of his policies. This being said, when Donald Trump states he wants to create a "Muslim registry" when you vote for him; even if you don't agree with this ideology, you are still voting for the man who will follow through with this. The Klu Klux Klan voted for the Donald J. Trump and they publicly endorsed him. For many, this should unacceptable, but it wasn't. For many this should have been an "aha" moment, that Trump is racist. If you gave in and voted for him, you voted for a racist. You have become a bystander to the public racism that he endorses. Just because you don't take part in the KKK's rituals, and just because you may not go out and use racial slurs, doesn't change the fact that his racism wasn't a deal breaker. Even after all of this, you were still able to go out and vote for him. You accepted his racism, and that in itself is a racist act. Not to mention, the lack of empathy a voter must have for minorities if they voted for Donald Trump. I'll state it for a third time, there has to be a point in time where you say "enough is enough" there has to be a line, and for many Donald Trump crossed this line. For me, Hillary Clinton used a private email server, was it a good decision? No. Did she apologize? Yes. The fact that her email may be more susceptible to hacking was not a deal breaker for me. The whole issue with Benghazi has been investigated 863 times. The investigations were thorough, and Hillary Clinton was not found to be guilty of any wrongdoing. If she had said what Donald Trump had said, especially in a public setting it would have been a deal breaker for me and so many other people. That doesn't mean I would go out and vote for Trump, just as I wouldn't expect Trump voters to vote for Hillary. There are third party nominees, and constituents always have the option of not voting. So, if you really disagree with half of the things that he has to say, you don't have to vote for him. Point, blank, period.
If you voted for Donald Trump you are racist.

No, I do not believe that all Trump voters are racists.This election was admittedly a fairly turbulent one. Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and co-founder of the Clinton Foundation, versus Donald Trump, a backwards businessman. The decision for who should be our president was not a black-and-white one. Hillary Clinton is convicted of using a private email server. She deleted over three thousand emails, some of which that were bound to be pertaining sensitive information. The question of why she even had a private email server has still not yet been answered. Trump is no better of a presidential figure. He's outspoken, his success relies on licensing the Trump name and on Fred Trump's real estate business, he's used illegal immigrants as a source of cheap labor and so on. However, some people weighed the options and chose Trump as their presidential candidate as opposed to Clinton, whether because the voters were strong supporters of the Republican Party, they didn't like Clinton's planned policies, or they were concerned with her private email server and her connections with businesses like Goldman Sachs.
Justin Bieber should be deported.

Well, that may be true, but the country can't deport him over drunk driving.Most people know already know that drugs are a bad idea, and that drinking a driving are a bad idea. How come one case of drunk driving is receiving more attention that all the shootings going on in our country? If we deported everyone of minor charges like drunk driving, I doubt that there would be many people left in this country, everyone makes a mistake sometimes, and then learn from their mistakes.
Anarchy or communism or democracy

So, by this argument, it is perfectly okay to slap people? Because Matthew 5:39 says "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." By this argument, it is perfectly okay to enslave people. Colossians 3:22 says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." Jesus and Paul aren't telling us that the slap and the slave owner are righteous, just as he isn't saying that Ceaser is righteous. If you believe that verse to be license for Ceaser, you are saying that Ancient Roman government is superior. Yet your communist! Also, what's the driving force in communism? Why would I want to put effort into anything, knowing that if I'm lazy and don't put effort into my work, I will get the same wages? Why should the government enter a voluntary transaction between two mutually consenting adults? Doing so is a direct violation of personal liberty. And have you ever heard of separation of church and state? The false "Christian" argument for Communism denies freedom of religion, and that's Christian value too. And there is no such thing as Christian hate of gays if Christian is defined by having Christian values. Sure, some Christians hate gays, but this is not Christ-like of them. I sure would not want to live in a Christian communist theocracy in which everyone is paid the same and there is no incentive for good work. Thank you for the debate.
Anarchy or communism or democracy

This is simply ridiculous. Communism does not support Christian values. Christianity DOES NOT support stealing (taxes). It simply doesn't. And the government suddenly gets rights that normal citizens don't. They basically get to steal by taxing, enslave by conscripting, and kill by war. IN COMMUNISM, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT EQUAL TO THE PEOPLE. And you seem not to understand anarchy. Anarchy would have a private business that is better than the government regulating the justice system and police forces. And you're right. Freedom is not free. It is bought not a the price of limiting freedom. That's contradictory. Freedom is bought by the blood of patriots resisting tyrannical government (communism).
Anarchy or communism or democracy

First, I'm assuming your pro-communism (the title of the debate is anarchy or communism or democracy). 1. "Everyone is equal." First of all, this false. In communism, everyone IS NOT EQUAL. The people in government get to violate people's basic rights. Also, not everyone SHOULD be equal. Whoever puts out the most and best labor should reap the most and best fruit. 2. "There is Order and Peace." First of all, there is order and peace in democracy and anarchy. But with communism, it comes at the price of liberty and basic, natural rights. 3. "Communism is Christian." Please expand on this, because I seriously doubt you understand what Christianity is. 4. "Communism is safe and paid the same." This is exactly why communism is bad. Why should the person who works the hardest and best get paid the same as someone who works less and worse? 5. "No starvation." You ever heard of The Great Chinese Famine? Let me explain why I believe in capitalism. In capitalism, the only transactions that take place (excluding theft, but that's hardly a transaction), are mutually consenting, and both parties value what they're getting more than what they are giving. This cannot be true of communism. It violates a basic right of voluntary trade.
Rap battle me now

My response is here, The end is near, the result is clear, and I have nothing to fear. Now let me take your holy water: t'was used to baptize Hitler and his father, I'll combine it with a board and show you true horror, 'cause waterboarding is an evil form of torture. This bible burner sees the fear in your eyes, You look mesmerized, I'm about to take the prize while I create your demise.
Rap battle me now

Let me revise that line i just said To what shall i measure your works, what shall i compare good to evil? It's like... I'm Mac Lethal vs. a sea gull, i break your skull, break your beak til it's full of bull n' your throat is see through If you pictured that the battle your in is too brutal, we ain't equal, your pain is just a prequel, next is the sequel! I'll baptize you in the same water you've been drinkin' n usin' the bathroom in I'ma Bible thumpin, mean-muggin' man that takes you n' starts slam dunkin' Stop bickerin' on n' on, cuz no matter what you say, you still suck Quackin' your mouth away as if it's gon change today like a duck I'll break your leg n' break the other one too Man you so weak n' ugly like who created you? Next round, he won't respond, cuz he knows it's true
Rap battle me now

Half man/Half bred? That's reverse evolution. When the people need a leader, I start the revolution. We'll leave you behind, we'll push you off the plank, You drown in the water; it'll be your last drank. I don't point fingers, I address figures, and I express them in my rhymes, That's why I earn hundreds while you still earning dimes. Give it up, chump, this battle's been over, Call me Mariano 'cause I'm the f-ing closer.
Rap battle me now

Son why'd you accept this battle, I'm a beast half man /half bred! Leave you dead wishin you hadn't bled like ancient story you read! You deceive yourself into thinking that you can think! But when you debate me to 1 side push you to the brink! There's nothing free about free thinker Except him pointing the finger At God, why he ugly vs. his sister I'm an administer of pain, you complain of the problem of evil Dunno why though cuz every day, you kiss the ring of a regal
Rap battle me now

One can tell by your rhymes that you have you no brain, You need to check yourself, bro, you seem to be going insane. I preach no prophecy, I control my own destiny, I ain't ever gonna let a scrub like you get the best of me. I've stepped over the competition, now they need a ladder. You're still on a step stool, looking like a fool, Sitting in a shed, because you're just a tool.
Rap battle me now

Just rap lol Anyone who says they badder must be worse than John McCains bladder Your heart I'll shatter cuz mine is as black as dark matter I killed you the false prophet and your people scattered As your reputation lay terribly battered, death got madder cuz im radder Step up to some competition, I don't need a night vision to have you in derision You raise funds for guns while I train huns n pray for nuns I call the runs for many sons n of bodies, I leave tons n tons