BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marxist Capitalists control the economy.

'The UN is full of them,' this is an opinion not a fact , it is not an argument as it is not backed up by any evidence. 'and if you cannot recognize that then I cannot help you.' How about not starting a debate when you don't have an argument.' I won't do the research for you, you will have to do it yourself. ' ThIs is supposed to be a debate , you are supposed to present me with a well thought out argument not pointless blabbaring . 'This is nothing like proving God, that is impossible. ' I didn't say the nature of it was like proving God , I said that the fact you are trying to shove the BoP on me when the BoP is on you is comparable to a Christian telling an Atheist to prove that God doesn't exist as an argument. 'Marxism and capitalism are two ideals that are easy to recognize, you just have blinders on.' The Debate is not about if Marxists and Capitalists run the economy the debate is about if 'Marxist Capitalists' run the economy. Conclusion- Pro has failed to fullfil the BoP and told me to research the topic myself.
Marxist Capitalists control the economy.

'Prove there are not Marxist capitalists, as that is your claim now.' That is equivelent to a Christian telling an Atheist to prove God doesn't exist as I have showed in the previous round the BoP is on Pro. he is the one that has to prove they exist , either way they cannot exist as Marxism and Capitalism are opposites and two opposites cannot be one and the same , this is illogical. 'There are so many of the rich that are Marxist, that is just a fact, and no matter how many lies you spew to evade the truth, the truth never lies.' Marxist does not = Capitalist Marxist. Capitalism is defined as 'An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled byprivate owners for profit, rather than by the state' -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Karl Marx advocated for Communism which is the opposite of Capitalism and like ive said before two opposites can't make a logical whole. My Opponent has to prove that 1)There is such a thing as a Marxist Capitalist 2)The Majority of the producers are Capitalist Marxists or that the producers that are Capitalist Marxists even though in the minority control the economy. 'Are you are Marxist Capitalist denier?' yes
Marxist Capitalists control the economy.

False. The BOP is on whoever one makes the positive claim , therefore the BOP is on you. You Can't wish it away. First of all there is no such thing as a 'Marxit Capitalist' as they are two conflicting ideologies. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Control is defined as 'The power to influence or direct people’s behaviour or the course of events' -http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Therefore to control the economy you would have to have enough power to direct an entire economy of a system . The only faction that could possibly have enough power to do so would have to be the state . There is no single country officially run by a political faction known as the 'Marxist Capitalists' -http://en.wikipedia.org... . Thus disproving my opponent's claim.
Bullying initiatives are a waste of money in schools

I would like to extend my arguments from the second round, as well as adding another facet to the issue. One of the increasingly-popular alternatives to standard anti-bullying measures is to utilize "peer counselors" or some such like program; effectively, they are students who develop and design their own programs for a variety of goals, including fighting bullying. Groups like these are relatively cheap to create (often only requiring enough funds for occasional small projects and donuts) and are highly effective because they address the issue of a bullying culture within a school, like with Magid's advice in his article from round 2, as well as having other beneficial effects throughout the school. Student-led groups such as that are extremely cost-effective as the primary "cost" is simply time.
Bullying initiatives are a waste of money in schools

I disgree with your statement and will proceed only on the terms that I have to show that money being put into bullying initiatives are a waste Waste- an act or instance of using or expending something carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose. I never stated ALL money was a waste, and as such, my argument will not try to encompass all of the subject matter. Case 1: Bullying tendencies are still increasing. Even with our best efforts, the rate of bullying is increasing, as shown in an article by the Guardian : http://www.theguardian.com.... This is a perfect example on how, even when initiatives are being cranked out faster then you can say it, the bullying reports are still increasing. Case 2: Bullying initiatives are, for some parents, a way to justify their children's victimization. Even though bullying is a serious issue in our schools today, there are those who are taking advantage of the programs and spotlights available to them causing the word "Bully" to be brought out of context, "By calling everything bullying, we're actually failing to recognize the seriousness of the problem," This quote is from Elizabeth Englander a professor of psychology and founder and director of the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State University. Now don't tell me you're not seeing instances when Mom and Dad are using bullying as an excuse for little Jimmy's behavior, this behavior has always been around, but now these "Awareness Programs" are starting to make the situation worse, barring access to kids who really need the support. Those are my first two, hit me with your best shot!
Bullying initiatives are a waste of money in schools

I hold that bullying initiatives are not necessarily a waste of money in schools. As the affirmative, you hold the burden of proof for proving that, according to the resolution, ALL bullying initiatives are a waste of money in schools. Ergo, if I show that at least certain types of bullying initiatives are not money-sinks, your argument is invalid, per the resolution. Agreed? If so, good luck sir, and may the odds be ever in your favor!
The existence of a God

Oh but there is. The existence of (absolute truth) necessitates the existence of a higher being. Naturalistic processes can only produce physical things. Truth is not a physical thing (and the fact that truth is truth regardless of what happens in the world helps show this) Therefore, It needs to come from a supernatural being. In case the argument that absolute truth doesn't exist occurs, That in of itself would be an absolute truth, Defeating the argument. I don't have much space, 🤞, So I will be brief. (primarily philosophical). From your view, We determine things by observation. Everything that we know has a cause, Or beginning. Therefore, Even if there was a big bang, Then a purely naturalistic standpoint would have to agree that Something caused this. This being would have to be supernatural because it came before anything physical or natural existed. This being would have to be all powerful to be able to create anything. And this being would fit the definition of a God.
The existence of a God

As Pro, I will be arguing for the existence of a God. I think the idea of the Big Bang is flawed due to the presuppositional nature of naturalism it entails and will try to show its flaws in this debate. I also think that the immense improbability that we are here in such a fine-tuned universe can be used against the Big Bang. Both my view and Con's view, At the core, Are unfalsifiable, And thus require belief, In either solely naturalistic processes, Or supernatural and natural processes. If the Big Bang holds true, Then life has come from non-life (abiogenesis). I will argue that since the law of biogenesis disagrees with that, Then an unnaturalistic event had to have occurred (creation). I will also combat common attacks against creation such as background radiation and planets moving away from each other. For sake of clarity, I am not proposing a young-earth model, I think old-earth will stand ground. I hope both of us will be able to learn from this debate.
The Wall

I will argue that a border wall on the Mexican-American Border is necessary. The opponent will argue a border wall on the Mexican-American Border is not necessary. Debate Structure Round One- Agree upon definitions if any, and accept debate rules Round Two- Present arguments without rebuking what the opposing debater argued. So if I presented my argument first, you cannot rebuke the points that I made in your. Round Three- NOW you can finally rebuke opposing arguments made by your opponents in Round Two. Round Four- Defend your round 2 arguments WITHOUT introducing any new arguments. MUST include sources for arguments. Definitions Border Wall- A series on panels implemented on a border [in this case the Mexican-American Border] , usually to keep out undocumented immigrants.
Naruto Uzamaki is better than Sasuke Uchiha.

Thanks blackanarchy. "Naruto can become into sage mode and he just looks cool like that. " Naruto's appearance has nothing to do with his skill. ". .. Naruto does kill Sasuke at the end of the series. " Except he totally didn't. That never happened, so that reason should be discarded. My opponent, in argument about skill, seems to rely mostly on looks. .. in fact, yeah, no points were made backing up anything but appearances. Only one point made carries any real weight, or at least would've if it were true, that is. Pro's argument is either irrelevant or false.
Naruto Uzamaki is better than Sasuke Uchiha.

I think Uzamaki, Naruto is better than Uchiha, Sasuke because Naruto can become into sage mode and he just looks cool like that. You can ask all my friends. Maybe Naruto is kind of...dumb, but Naruto does kill Sasuke at the end of the series. So that is really cool how he did it. Nine tails with Super Giant Raenngan.
Women should be forced to sign up for the draft

If men want to vote, they have to put their lives on the line. Because women couldn't vote, they also weren't drafted. For a long time, this was the norm. However, in light of a hundred years or so of gender equality movements, women have gained the right to vote. However, they still keep the ability to vote without being signed up for the draft. Women should have to sign up for the draft and risk their lives just like men do.
In Starcraft II, Terran is OP in comparison to the other two races.

Case: To establish my point that Terran is indeed OP, I will go over the various "combos" (unit combinations) that are frequently used in Starcraft 2. - Siege Tanks: Originally, Tanks damaged 70 on Massive units & 1/2 the damage on small units. Now, it does 50 all-around, regardless of the unit size. This completely eliminates the chance of melee characters getting anywhere near, and an ultimate advantage on high-grounds. Known counters are Chargelots (destroyed with 10-20 tanks and marine backup), air units (destroyed with Thors), and Blink Stalkers (useless when Tank is on high grounds/marine counter). - MMM Drops: Quite possibly the most eco-damaging combo, the MMM drops are played throughout Bronze League to Master's. Basically, with Stim, around 2 full Medivacs can destroy the entire economy. Even with Cannons or Spine Crawlers near the mineral line, 1 Raven can soak up the entire damage. - Ravens: Simply massing Ravens is a viable strategy, and an unstoppable one. Auto Turrets remain for 180 seconds. Not only can it go behind mineral lines and destroy the eco, it is also effective in eliminating entire bases and expansions. The Seeker Missiles does massive splash damage. - Thor + Siege Tank: This combo is almost impossible to beat. 3 Weapon Ups gives Thors 39 Damage, and Siege Tanks around 60. 15 Thors cannot be beat without a large horde of Zerglings; Tanks counter them. Vice versa, Tanks are lost to air; Thors counter air. This combination is really, impossible to beat, especially in late-game. - Reaper: 5 Reapers, well-microed, can take out an entire mineral line, even after their patched Nerf. I ask the Con to provide effective counter-methods to each individual combo I have listed, or simply show me how Zerg and/or Toss is OP or at the least, balanced, in comparison to Terran. Thanks, and good luck!
In Starcraft II, Terran is OP in comparison to the other two races.

The topic is solely on Starcraft II, not I. Semantics: Terran - One of the three races in the Starcraft anthology. OP - Overpowered; imbalanced; too advantageous Other two races - Protoss and Zerg Round Format: Round I - Debate Accepted/Introductions Round II - Aff [Case] & Neg[Case + Rebuttal] Round III - Aff [Rebuttal & Summary] & Neg [Rebuttal & Summary] Good luck to the challenger.
Drug Legalization (Marijuana)

In response to your question that you answered yourself how many people have died thanks to marijuana approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC.(1) (1)http://www.drugabuse.gov... Second of all marijuana does not stop the spread of cancer it relieves the stress/pain of cancer but other than that it has no effect on the spread of cancer and there are studies that prove that marijuana causes lukemia in some cases. Also no offense but I would like to see sources on your 24 benefits.
Drug Legalization (Marijuana)

Section 1 For my first claim I would like to state that marijuana is a gateway drug. A gateway drug is a drug that leads to harder more destroying drugs. Like most drugs a tolerance to marijuana can be built up which leads people to use harder drugs to reach the high that marijuana gives them (1). It's not the drug it's self that causes people to move on to worse drugs but it's the people that can't reach that high that marijuana gives them anymore. (1)http://www.drugscience.org... Section 2 My second claim is that marijuana cause health problems. Marijuana is supposedly fine and doesn't harm you but marijuana smokers risk the health of their lungs, brain, and other organs. People who smoke marijuana have these effects altered perceptions and mood, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory (2). But marijuana doesn't just have short term effects it can deminish IQ scores over a span of years and mess up brain development. (2)http://www.drugabuse.gov... Section 3 And for my third claim I would like to state that this is my sole opinion but if adults have marijuana whats to stop them from selling marijuana to minors.
Allow Marriage Equality in Australia

Everything Con has said has been a combination of "slippery slope", "strawman", and "non-sequitir" fallacies.Allowing marriage equality will not lead to boys being allowed to wear dresses (not that there's actually anything wrong with that), private businesses not being allowed to choose who they serve, or people marrying a frog or some such nonsense. Con is providing nonsensical scaremongering, and nothing more.Marriage equality should be legal because it is a matter between consenting adults, and nothing more. It harms no one. It should be legal.Sources:[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)
Shrek is the worst move ever

Thank you for your response, Dumbchic. The resolution is "Shrek is the worst movie ever" and my opponent is Con. Therefore, she has to prove that Shrek is NOT the worst movie ever. As Pro, I will be arguing in favor of the resolution that Shrek is in fact the worst movie ever. Thus far I've provided a contention that is in completely the opposite favor of my position (noting another movie as worse than Shrek; therefore, negating the resolution). However, so has my opponent. So far she has given a plethora of reasons stating why Shrek is the worst movie ever. I will submit her sentiments as contentions in my favor: 1. Shrek has an idiotic plot. 2. Shrek is green; he's stupid because real ogres are not green. 3. Both the plot and main character of Shrek are stupid. .: Therefore, Shrek is the worst movie ever. Con agrees with these contentions, and cannot submit any new arguments in the last round (that is considered bad conduct). As such, she agrees with the resolution and has thus essentially forfeited the debate. She has yet to come up with a movie that is worse than Shrek, and has not explained why Shrek is not the worst movie ever. .
Shrek is the worst move ever

shrek is the worst movie ever because the plot is idiotic. Person finds donkey, the donkey talks, eveyrone gathers infront of the house, Shrek suddenly has to go save the princess. What? What the heck? That doesn't make any sense. People who made this moev is an ijot. And he is green. OGres aren't green! They're brownish-yellow. STupid plot and a stupid character. Stupid.
I know I exist

(If I think up a person having a crisis doing and saying exactly what you are saying he is no more real then he was before.) There is always a possibility that thing you have regarded as unreal thing happens. 'all we have ever done (that we know of) is "exist"' confirms I have existed and does not demonstrate that It is possible for me not to exist. 'I know I exist' is compatible with 'It is possible for me not to exist' which does not verify 'It is impossible for me to exist.'
I know I exist

Well this is definitely a different type if debate for me, but I think this answer will suffice. You are making a logical jump to your conclusion. Ideas can be thought up. If I think up a person having a crisis doing and saying exactly what you are saying he is no more real then he was before. It is possible that we do not truly "exist" but rather we are going through some other unknown process and we just think we exist. Sadly, because all we have ever done (that we know of) is "exist" so no one can wrap their heads around what else their could be, so to summarize. It is possible (whether or not their is a deceived object or not) for you to not exist. P.S. Please be more clear with your answers so that I can accurately tell what you are saying, having adequate grammar is just a common courtesy.
I know I exist

(At this point you are attempting to win on semantics. That is not a debate that is worth debating) I am winning on logic. If you can not understand you would think those are just semantics. 1: You discussed whether it is possible we do exist before me to write, so I answered. 2: This debate is about 'I know I exist or not,' why do you change the theme as you please? 3: I can have a job to explain my thesis by using your sayings. 4: If you agree "exist" does include some meaning of existence, you should admit we have existed. If not, you should agree you used "exist" as a concept not related to existence. 5: (To know something you must have none to very little doubt in your mind that it is a truth.) Your concept of the knowledge shows many fallacies. You admit that you debate without knowing my arguments. Good debaters must know the opponent's arguing before refuting. You proved you are a defective debater on your own. You also admit that we can decide we know or not by doubting or not. I do not doubt you are illogical, which proves I know you are illogical. If I doubt all things, I do not know anything, in other words, I know I do not know anything. I also do not know that I do not know anything since I do not know anything. I know this and do not know this, which shows a contradiction. Your concept of the knowledge is false by reductio ad absurdum. (By proving the possibility that no one does, whether you say it or not there is doubt in your mind, meaning that you cannot know it.) I said, "there is a possibility of me existing like this time though there is also a possibility of nonexistence like when we die and perish." However, I did not say that there is a possibility of 'me' not existing 'in the present' which show I do not have a little doubt about 'I know I exist.' Can you differentiate these? Why did you ignore the above? 6: (And how would you know you could not write it?) Do you think nonexistence wrote all these things? You know even air cannot write these. (The point I have been making is that you cannot know this is truly what we consider existence.) Truly 'this' is what we consider existence. The existence in your mind is not the existence people universally consider. (So it is possible you could write it because we don't know the existence we think we feel is truly existence in the first place.) The existence we think we feel is genuinely existence. The existence in your mind is not the existence we think we feel. Why do you make another concept of existence without specific explaining? You argue about things you do not understand. That is like saying '"horse" is not a horse, but I do not know what the horse. I have the "horse," but I do not have the horse.' I am arguing not the horse unique in your mind but about the horse we consider. Why do not you debate about an existence than wasting time on existence you do not know? You made semantics by noting unnecessary concept and committing logical fallacies.
I know I exist

At this point you are attempting to win on semantics. That is not a debate that is worth debating 1. This has no meaning in it, write a more specific statement. 2. Exactly what I said, this debate is about the possibility that we don't exist. 3. I am saying it is your job to prove your point, not to defend it. 4. I could have, but I understood that by saying exist and by putting it into quotations it would show just how flimsy are knowledge on existence is. Sadly it seems to have just gone over your head. 5. To know something you must have none to very little doubt in your mind that it is a truth. By proving the possibility that no one does, whether you say it or not there is doubt in your mind, meaning that you cannot know it. 6. And how would you know you could not write it? The point I have been making is that you cannot know this is truly what we consider existence. So it is possible you could write it because we don't know the existence we think we feel is truly existence in the first place. So argue that rather than wasting time on semantics.
I know I exist

(For the first lines, we aren't debating whether it is possible we do exist) You first noted that "It is possible that we do not truly "exist"" (we are debating the possibility that we don't) What is the meaning of this line? (so talking about possibilities is my job, not yours) I cannot understand how the reason you offered is related to this words. (For the second lines, I specifically put exist in quotations to represent the.fact that it might not be what we call existence. So the line of reasoning is still yet to have shown flaws.) If so, why did you use the word "exist"? You should have used another word if you wanted to express another meaning like nonexistent. You cannot refute the fact "exist" means "exist" so you inevitably showed flaws that "'all we have ever done (that we know of) is "exist"' confirms I have existed and does not demonstrate that It is possible for me not to exist." (So my job is to prove the possibility of nonexistentance, not the other way around.) I have insisted that I know I exist, so your job is to prove that I do not know I exist. Why do you unnecessarily make another debate? I think you should make a new one. The proposition that I know I exist is compatible with proving "the possibility of nonexistence" which does not verify the statement that It is impossible for me to exist. (So please attempt to prove there is no possibility of us not existing.) Even though I do not affirm this proposition, my first thesis is valid, because there is a possibility of me existing like this time though there is also a possibility of nonexistence like when we die and perish. However-You had to express like this-there is no possibility of 'me' not existing 'in the present' because I cannot write if I do not exist.