BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Polearm vs Sword

Note: I have reposted this debate due to the previous Con forfeiting both rounds. Please, do not accept this debate unless you intend to actually take part. In this debate, I will be arguing that spears or other polearms designed for single combat (that is, exclusive of enormous weapons such as pikes that were used defensively in large group formations) hold a massive advantage over swords. Con may either argue that, generally speaking, a sword wielder would hold the advantage in a duel, or that there would be no clear advantage. For the purposes of their argument, Con may refer to a single sword design, or speak generically. It is to be assumed that both combatants are completely equal in terms of variables such as training, skill, size, strength, etc. Round structure is as follows: Round One - Acceptance ONLY Round Two - Arguments ONLY Round Three - Arguments and/or Rebuttals Round Four - Rebuttals ONLY
Polearm vs Sword

Before beginning my next argument, I want to make it clear, that a. In my argument, I used a quote. I couldn't change that without taking out a lot of the information I was using. b. The LARP group, or at least the part I like, actually tries to make use of real combat strategy. c. You never said it was European combat in question until your argument in round 2.d. I would rather have been on the Pole Arm side, because I do believe Pole Arms have the advantage in the fight. e. It was easier (in my opinion) to argue the swords advantage over the pole arm than that is has no clear advantage. And One question I would like you to answer in your response. What type of pole arms are you using? Just a spear, or anything but the more defensive ones like Halberds? Now on to my argument. I feel like I am beating a dead horse. I honestly feel like I am going to lose this debate, but I am going to try any way. While pole arms have the advantage of length and leverage, swords can be used for bot stabbing and slashing, as well as defense. And your answer to my question could change the importance of that sentence. I fully agree with Dufflepud. Pole Arms do have the obvious advantage of leverage and size. But with, lets say, a wooden spear with a steel head, goes in for a jab at the stomach, the swordsman could just cut off the tip of the spear. As the combatant with the spear advances or defends against the swordsman, the swordsman could just hack away at the remaining shaft of the spear. Once the shaft is too short for reasonable use, it would take serious luck to do any real damage with a blunt stick no bigger than the household kitchen knife. From what I understand, luck is not being taken into consideration. This being my final point, I surrender to Dufflepud, under the circumstances that Pole Arms hold the clear advantage over swords with their speed, size, leverage, and technique. I was just playing the devil's advocate for my last argument.
Polearm vs Sword

Swords are more nimble, and easier to use. Pole Arms move very slow, while swords can enter strategic positions in the opponents stance. Pole arms may be more useful for blocking, and more powerful in striking power, but swords can take advantage of the slow speed of the pole arm to put in some quick stabs or slashes. My experience comes from fencing, and being a member of Nashville's Medieval Combat Group. I am trained in both pole arms and swords, along with things like battle axes. Pole arms can crush armor, making it useless, but swords can take advantage of the gaps in the armor, like around joints, and gaps in the face shield of the helmet. " Well, he's going to have a whole lot more room, and he'll probably make use of a whole lot more thrusting maneuvers. If he has any skill at all he will be able to really take advantage of the length he has. But, if you're equipped with a shield, that advantage goes down the drain, because it allows you to smother his offense (the biggest strong point of a pole arm), and rush in with your own. The closer you get the poorer a pole arm is at the defensive. There are big differences between a two-hander, a hand and a halfer, and a singlehander w/ shield in terms of use against a pole arm (or against anything for that matter. A true two hander gives you more length to work with, but no free hands for shields. Which means you'll have to be fast moving in, because a pole arm is not slow. Even if you've batted it to the side, rushing in can be tricky against a skilled user. Again, if he's familiar with the weapon, he can keep you at a distance, especially if you only have one thing in your hands. A bastard sword gives you the advantage of length and power, while still giving you the freedom of an extra hand when you need it. This is excellent for grabbing pole arms. If you can tug on it, there's not a whole lot they can do, especially if it's long. Sword and shield, well, the advantage there is obvious." -Justin Gifford SwordForum.com While Swords are better in maneuverability, pole arms keep their enemy away from them. Once the swordsman get up close and personal, the pole arm becomes a stick. The pole arm does have an opposite side for closer encounters, but only a trained professional will be able to use it, and only a very well trained, battle hardened veteran will be able to think of changing ends during a fight. Since both combatants are the same size, have the same experience,skill, etc., it is easy to assume that both combatants are complete strangers, and do not know each others fighting style.
Drivers License Checkpoints are Unconstitutional

The debate is whether or not: “Drivers License Checkpoints are Unconstitutional” Pro’s case involved a statutory interpretation and ruled ONLY on the procedure of the checkpoints. It did NOT rule that checkpoints were unconstitutional.[1] ONLY PROCEDURE WAS INVOLVED. So the case provide last round about Texas dedicated did not say rule on the constitutionality of the checkpoints. If you read the opinion, it looked only at a statutory issue involved, not the constitutionality of the checkpoints. [Checkpoints] “are not permissible in Texas under the federal constitution only because Texas has no statutory scheme authorizing them…”[2] So to be clear, the Texas case said checkpoints in that case were unconstitutional ONLY because a governing body in Texas had not authorized a statewide procedure. Nothing else. As I indicated last round, the Supreme Court [and I agree the Supreme Court often makes decisions that are terrible; however their decisions determine what is and what is not constitutional. Their decision are binding on both the Federal and State governments, without exception] Narrow Ruling in Texas and it did not undermine of conflict with Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) Pro last points are true a Supreme Court decision can be overturned, either by the Court rejecting precedent or through legislative means. BUT the debate is not checkpoints should be unconstitutional nor is the debate checkpoints ought to be unconstitutional. That is a normative debate and had it been a normative question I agree as a philosophical matter (not as a factual constitutional matter) with Pro. But my personal views and preferences are irrelevant since this debate is a factual and legal matter. If the debate was about overturning Michigan v. Sitz I would agree with Pro that it should. But that is not actually the debate, so is entirely irrelevant. The only thing we are debate is whether or not checkpoints are constitutional or not. They are constitutional; they apply equally in Texas and in any other state. The Texas case mentioned is not in conflict with Michigan v. Sitz. [1] State v. Holt, 887 S.W. 2d 16 (Tex. Cr. App. 1994). Here is a link to the opinion of the Texas State Court, it does not actual support what Pro suggested. https://www.courtlistener.com... [2] http://thenelsonfirm.com...
Drivers License Checkpoints are Unconstitutional

The Fourth Amendment [1] protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. Many argue a driver"s license checkpoint subjects a person to a seizure without any reasonable suspicion that an offense occurred. Courts typically consider three main factors when determining whether a roadblock constitutes a seizure: 1. The state"s interest in preventing accidents caused by drivers under the influence; 2. How effective the checkpoints are in preventing drunken accidents; and 3. The level of intrusion the sobriety checkpoint has on an individual"s right to privacy. In Texas, these checkpoints are unconstitutional. In State v. Holt, 887 S.W. 2d 16 (Tex. Cr. App. 1994), the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held that because a governing body in Texas has not authorized a statewide procedure for DWI roadblocks, such roadblocks are unreasonable and unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution unless and until a politically accountable governing body sees fit to enact constitutional guidelines. As Pro pointed out, The U.S. Supreme Court case Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) affirmed that a highway sobriety checkpoint was consistent with the Fourth Amendment"s prohibition on unreasonable seizures. Even though difficult, Supreme Court decisions have been overturned several times [2]. It can basically be done through two ways. States can amend the Constitution itself, requiring three-quarters of the state legislatures, or, the Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur. 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Drivers License Checkpoints are Unconstitutional

Has anyone been driving along with your significant other after seeing a movie or having dinner on a Friday or Saturday night, only to find that they are now caught in a traffic jam? As you get closer and inch along, taking several minutes, you discover police lights up ahead. You get even closer and now you realize you're trapped in a drivers license checkpoint. When asked, you provide your license to the officer, and are allowed to proceed, but only after the officer scans your license, performing a cross-check against the law enforcement database. The officer has determined you have no warrants out for your arrest and you are not inebriated. You can finally get a breath of fresh air after developing a headache from breathing the exhaust from the car ahead of you for over a half hour or more. This reeks of the Nazi Gestapo's tactic of "YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE" of former Europe, doesn't it? Are we losing more of our civil rights? Should the actions of a few who choose to break the law be a burden to the rest of us? Should someone (perhaps a law enforcement officer?) decide to accept the debate challenge, let's: Round 1: A) define "drivers license checkpoint" and it's purpose Round 2: B1) Show/interpret any laws that provide drivers license checkpoints are unconstitutional or, B2) Show/interpret any laws that provide drivers license checkpoints are constitutional; Round 3: C1) Conclude the practice as unconstitutional and therefore should be discontinued and or, C2) Conclude the practice as constitutional and leave alone Provide evidence for your view. Democratically allow the audience decide who provided the best argument and allow a victor to emerge through the casting and counting of votes.
Same Sex Marriage

Resolved: Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal in the United StatesI want to begin by saying how delighted I am to be debating 16kadams on a very important social issue. I have seen 16kadams previous debates and have seen that he is quite a challenging debater. I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguments against SSM. RulesThe structure shall be defined as follows:1) Terms/Acceptance2) Opening Statemen 3-4) Rebuttals5) Closing statementsIn the final round, there shall be a maximum of 1,000 characters allowed for the closing argument.
Same Sex Marriage

Thank you, 16kadams, for the opportunity to debate. Pro 1: SSM Ban is Unconstitutional A federal (or state) ban on Same-sex marriage is unconstitutionalfor several reasons 1) The right to marriage is a fundamental right Before we can begin to understand why marriage is a fundamental right, we must first understandthat marriage is a contract between two people – it is not about gender;rather, it is a commitment to love and support each other. Since 1888, the Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that the right to marry is a fundamental right: “[T]hedecision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression ofemotional support and public commitment.” ~Turnerv. Safley, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rightsessential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” ~Lovingv. Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) 2) SSM Ban violates the XIV Amendment The XIV Amendment states that "[no State shall] deny to any person within its jurisdictionthe equal protection of the laws.” Freeman pointed out that SSM bans violatethe clause in two ways: First, they deny gay men and women the ability to marrythe person of their choice; second, these bans single out and harm a suspectclass by preventing them to marriage. [1. http://www.debate.org...]. Indeed, freeman is perhaps more correct than he realizes. Not only are gays harmed by not beingpermitted to marry the person of their choice, but there is strong economic andsocial harm such as the case of Roger Gorley who was forced out of the hospitalwhen he was visiting his partner and arrested [2. http://www.change.org...]. There are hundreds of such cases and to the like. Conclusion I will add and expand in the next round, but for nowwe learn several things: 1) A federal or state ban on SSM is unconstitutional 2) Gays are harmed in more than one way be being denied the fundamental right tomarriage 3) SSM ban is a form of discrimination
Laptops are Better Than Desktop Computers

1. 24 F/S is what the movies have been using since the 1920s. The Hobbit will double that this winter, and I think that jump to 48 F/S is long overdue. This article claims "video games should be playable from 30 to 60 F/S". http://www.techsupportforum.com... The Y480's graphics card came out 7 months after Battlefield 3, and it still couldn't keep it from dipping below 30 F/S. Graphics cards are meant to be usable (stay above 30 F/P) with future games, and this one can barely play this game on medium settings. Witcher 2 is a year older than the graphics card, and was playable after lowering the resolution (which means it has to render less pixels) and on lower settings. The normal 640 should maintain above 40 F/P on high, the 640M can hold 40 on medium. The Y480's 640M LE is even worse. 2. Laptops have a higher risk of damage from dropping, because people don't drop desktops. When you are walking around with a laptop, you aren't thinking "don't drop it, don't drop it, don't drop it..." you are working on it. When you move a desktop, all you should be thinking about is "don't drop it, don't drop it, don't drop it..." On the topic of computers breaking, if any part of a desktop fails (hard drives, monitor, RAM, mouse, ect) it can be replaced. If a laptop keyboard fails, you need a new laptop! Batteries die, and then they need replacement; desktops don't. 3. What happens if you run out of USB ports? Laptops only have a few ports, desktop several, and if a desktop runs out of them, then buying a USB PCI card is cheap and easy. My main point of this agreement is that laptop users cannot customize internal hardware like desktops. 4. On buying a mouse and keyboard, desktops often come with those. I have always just had some extra keyboards ad mouses; I never had to go out and buy one (and I am sure I am not the only one with extra stuff). About monitors, I only need one for every couple of desktops; you are forced to buy a new one every time you buy a laptop. 5. Who would buy a laptop and then plug 7 speakers and a subwoofer into it? Laptops are not made for surround sound, while desktops can do anything but physically move. Laptops can do a lot of useful things, I bring an old laptop with linux on it to my class all the time to take notes and other things. I then come back to my dorm to a powerful desktop with dual monitors and a 5.1 surround system. Desktops can do anything but move, laptop users sacrifice some power for portability. I think it will always be this way: as computer parts become small and more powerful, and then computer software will demand all of its power. Hardware and software are continually forcing each other to be better. So laptops will always be the portable (and weaker) version of desktops. Some people need the portability, and I can see that; but portability is the only thing laptops have on desktops. These days, smartphones are taking over the laptops' job: they can call, text, and surf the web; and it fits in your pocket. Desktops are more powerful, customizable, cheaper, and reliable.
Laptops are Better Than Desktop Computers

1. Your "Gaming" laptop can hardly game anything: http://www.theverge.com... While playing any modern game, on medium or low settings, the Nvidia 640M LE (Which is two big step down from the normal 640) can hardly keep the frame rate at a playable pace. For just $617, you can get this great rig from bestbuy: http://goo.gl... It comes with a mouse and keyboard, and if you don't want to by a monitor, gaming on family TV is the way to go! It can play any modern game on higher settings too. (I will say that the graphics card will be out-dated soon, but upgrading graphics cards are easy with desktops) 2. Buying batteries can still be a choir, and unnecessary if one only bought a desktop. Hard drive fail a lot more often in laptops than desktops, mainly because drives are one of the few moving parts of a computer. Most are spinning at 1200RPS, and just accelerating it to quickly could harm the drive. Most desktops have strong aluminum casing, so if I drop my desktop (which won't happen because it never needs to be moved) I would be more concerned about my toes than a dent in the case. 3. I was talking about internal hard ware; USBs are external, so desktops and laptops are kind-of tied there (with the exception that you must continuously plug, and unplug devices with laptops). 4. I was referring to bang per buck. Even after the purchase of a monitor desktops win (which you might only have to do once, I am on my third desktop and I still on my original dual monitors). And computer monitors are better than laptop monitors (brighter, bigger, and sharper). 5. Desktops have the capability of producing 7.1 surround sound. All it needs is a $50 sound card and some speakers. I know those speakers are very expensive, but I am trying to say that desktops have the option of that, while laptops do not. I also found this article on how to build an amazing rig for under $1000: http://www.pcworld.com... It was made a year ago, so you could make the same rig for about $850 or upgrade the graphics card.
Laptops are Better Than Desktop Computers

Here are your arguments (and my responses) : 1. Laptops are also not nearly as powerful as desktops (unless you want to shell out a thousand extra dollars). Desktops are great for large computations, like gaming and multitasking, with out ever running the risk of over heating or being dropped. Smart-shoppers can build an amazing rig for under $1,000. Given that does not include a monitor, keyboard or mouse, so more like $1,200 if you need those things. Mine: First, some type of input device is needed for a computer to use it (eg. keyboard/mouse) so lets assume a desktop is bought for $1200 (as told in your claim). However, gaming laptops start from 649.00, and include keyboard and mouse. (1) 2. Laptops have a much shorter life. Their batteries die, hard drives fail, the over heat, and run the real risk of being dropped and smashed. If any part of a desktop breaks (which is still less likely than the same part in a laptop failing), it can easily be replaced. Mine: Batteries can also be purchased directly, and are as easily replaceable as desktop pieces. Plus, you can also put the laptop on AC power. Hard drives can fail on laptops, and the risk of getting computer viruses are equal. Laptops overheat only if the fan is not working or the computer is put on a soft surface and sinks into it. Laptops can get dropped, though it will not always get damaged. Desktops, on the other hand, are heavier and will probably fall apart when dropped. 3.Desktops are more customizable. Buying computer parts for desktops is easy. They have do not have special sizes or parts. If I buy a new part for a desktop, it should fit into any other desktop. Buying parts of laptops is very difficult because of the variety and compactness. Mine:There are many computer parts that work for laptops. For example, there are ones based on U.S.B. 4. Desktops are cheaper ($500 will get you a better desktop than laptop, as will $1500). Even after buying a monitor. They are also cheaper in the long term because they will need to be replace less often as I stated in point 2. Mine: I stated the response to this below 1. 5. Desktops can (you don't even have to buy speakers) have better audio than laptop. I just hate listening to a good song with crappy (often mono) speakers Mine: After you put speakers on a laptop, (about 10$), and add that to 649$, you get 659$, which is lower than the 1100$ you stated for desktops. (1)http://shop.lenovo.com...
Laptops are Better Than Desktop Computers

Hello! This is also my first debate, so I guess we will see how it goes. To your argument (they seem to be about the same thing), I will say that in the age of smartphones becoming practical, laptops are no longer needed. I can do almost anything from my smartphone that you can do from a laptop, but smartphones win with portability, as they fit in my pocket. So laptops (including Netbooks) are the third best type of computer because they are massive compare to smartphones and just as powerful. 1. Laptops are also not nearly as powerful as desktops (unless you want to shell out a thousand extra dollars). Desktops are great for large computations, like gaming and multitasking, with out ever running the risk of over heating or being dropped. Smart-shoppers can build an amazing rig for under $1,000. Given that does not include a monitor, keyboard or mouse, so more like $1,200 if you need those things. 2. Laptops have a much shorter life. Their batteries die, hard drives fail, the over heat, and run the real risk of being dropped and smashed. If any part of a desktop breaks (which is still less likely than the same part in a laptop failing), it can easily be replaced. 3.Desktops are more customizable. Buying computer parts for desktops is easy. They have do not have special sizes or parts. If I buy a new part for a desktop, it should fit into any other desktop. Buying parts of laptops is very difficult because of the variety and compactness. 4. Desktops are cheaper ($500 will get you a better desktop than laptop, as will $1500). Even after buying a monitor. They are also cheaper in the long term because they will need to be replace less often as I stated in point 2. 5. Desktops can (you don't even have to buy speakers) have better audio than laptop. I just hate listening to a good song with crappy (often mono) speakers
Laptops are Better Than Desktop Computers

This is my first debate, so I won't be really good at it. Here are some definitions: Desktop computer-Computers that usually have: A monitor, a mouse, a keyboard and the actual computer. Laptop: same as a desktop computer, though usually smaller can be taken from place to place. Usually has batteries. Here is my first argument: Laptops have rechargeable batteries, so they can be used somewhere an electrical socket is not provided. Second argument: Laptops can be taken from place to place, while desktop computers are harder to move.