BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Zendaya is the best celebrity

Now to begin: A celebrity is a "A famous person. " [1] However this can also extended to other things such as animals and robots :D. So basically anyone who is well known, or famous is a celebrity. Among these celebrities is Zendaya, and dancer on Disney's "Shake it up". She is a girl who dances, sings and acts. And she is obviously not the best celebrity. Take Beethoven for example. Beethoven was an amazing composer, who wrote 9 symphonies. And to add on to that, he was deaf. Imagine how difficult it is to write music without being able to hear it. Despite of Beethoven's hard of hearing, he was able to create amazing music. Also to make things worst, his dad was and alcoholic. And the even more amazing part is that his music survived over 200 years. To this day, we still remember a variety of the movements in his symphonies. [2]To this day, I can't even remember the melody to Zendaya's popular song "Replay". Her music will definitely not survive as long as Beethoven, and she didn't face the same difficulties, making Beethoven the superior celebrity. And don't forget Martin Luther king. He was a huge part of destroying segregation. He fought for everyone's rights, regardless of colour of skin. And then he was assassinated. Still, to this day, we remember him. He is a much better celebrity than Zendaya, because he fought against all odds. [3] Zendaya came 2nd place on dancing with the stars and can't even get nominated in anything except for the teen choice awards. Oh and I can't get Malala Yousafzai. She is an amazing young lady who fights for girls to be allowed to have an education. And she was even shot for doing such. That is how amazing her work is, her work is so amazing that someone wanted to stop it. It made such a difference that the Taliban wanted to stop it. [4] All of these celebrities are far superior to Zendaya. Because of such, Zendaya is obviously not the best celebrity. sources: 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://www.lvbeethoven.com... 3. . http://www.nobelprize.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Zendaya is the best celebrity

"I think she's great because she's done a lot of great things" First of all, you did not put a period at the end of the sentience, giving me points for spelling and grammar. Furthermore, she still not addressed any of my arguments, while I have addressed all of hers. In addition, she committed an act of plagiarism, which gives me points for conduct. First of all, she didn't do anything revolutionary. She has simply been in a TV show, made a song, and came 2nd in a dancing competition. This doesn't make her the best celebrity. There are celebrities that changed the world, through art, writing and music. They are all better than Zendaya, because they made a bigger change, have better art, dancing and music, and can actually win something they dedicated their life for, they didn't come in second place. Final arguments: Thousands of people make a change in the world, and they are well known, like Martin Luther King. There are also many amazing dancers much better than Zendaya like the Jabbawockeez. There are much better singers than Zendaya, like every single member of the Beatles. Even Miley Cyrus is a better singer than Zendaya. And of course there are thousands of better actors. In conclusion, there are many people who do what Zendaya does, but better. In fact, they also do more things. Zendaya can't even win a dancing show. She dedicated her life to dancing, but she can't even win a dancing show. There are many other celebrities that have changed the world, and have done much more than Zendaya, making Zendaya impossible of being the best celebrity. Vote for con, because con has addressed all of Pro's arguments. Also, Pro has committed an act of plagiarism, and didn't address ANY of con's arguments.
Zendaya is the best celebrity

Pro has not addressed any of my arguments once again. I repeated myself just to give her a chance at rebutting them, yet she still doesn't. In addition, her first argument was plagiarism, if you read her source, you will realise she copied the exact words of it. Last time I checked, plagiarism is a crime, correct me if I'm wrong. Rebuttals: "I think Zendaya is the best celeb because she's a great role model and she did a lot of great things in this past year. Like she was one point away from winning dancing with the stars." Great role model? As you said, she came second place in dancing with the stars. She wasn't even able to win! She is teaching children that when you follow your dreams, you still won't win. Great message isn't it? Arguments: Zendaya did not accomplish anything, or changed the lives of anyone. She simply entertained people, and did not accomplish any important goals. She can't even win in an event that she dedicated her life for. (dancing with the stars) There are many people have changed the world, saved many, and can sing and dance better than Zendaya. So, basically, Zendaya is not the best celebrity, because she did not accomplish major goals, and isn't the best at what she does. I will not say much, and give pro 1 final chance the rebuttal the same arguments I have been repeating.
War Game: Germany(defender) vs. France(attacker)

GDP(German Defensive Plan) WMD: Chemical Weapon(Mustard Gas) News Announcement! France has declared war on Germany for assuming threats that the German President has made. German men and women have been called to arms to fight back this attacking force. We must defend our coast to the north and our border to the west. We must not fail! We must push on and push back this threatening enemy! Unite as one we will, and take down the enemy. GERMANY!!! I guess what we are starting with are the Invasions of Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg and Bremen. So I will tell my defensive plan for these cities. March 4, 2020 The recent news announcements through out Germany have started to cause widespread recruitment of troops. Every man and woman of age will and can be recruited into the army, air force, and navy if needed. March 13, 2020 Germany has started to use conscription instead of regular recruitment. Due to the failures of recruitment, and Propaganda has started to become widespread. March 30, 2020 The U.N(United Nations) has said they will not assist France or Germany in this war and will stay neutral. NATO has also said they will not interfere in this French Invasion. April 6, 2020 Defenses are to be placed in the major cities of Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg, and Bremen. Major defenses will be mines, bunkers, trenches, tank traps, mobile artillery field and mobile anti-air fields. April 18, 2020 Manpower: Total Population: 81,147,265 Available Manpower: 36,417,842 Fit for Service: 29,538,413 Reaching Military Age Annually: 790,368 Active Frontline Personnel: 183,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 145,000 Land Systems: Tanks: 408 AFVs: 4,279 SPGs: 185 Towed-Artillery: 0 MLRSs: 252 Air Power: Total Aircraft: 710 Fighters/Interceptors: 190 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 74 Transport Aircraft: 433 Trainer Aircraft: 47 Helicopters: 401 Attack Helicopters: 26 Naval Power: Total Naval Strength: 82 Aircraft Carriers: 0 Frigates: 12 Destroyers: 0 Corvettes: 5 Submarines: 4 Coastal Defense Craft: 8 Mine Warfare: 15
War Game: Germany(defender) vs. France(attacker)

Thank you for letting me debate. -- I noticed that my opponent has set a limit of 20 kt yield for the Nuclear Weapons. I urge him to raise it, considering that even 'Fat Man', the bomb dropped on Nagasaki in 1945, had a yield of 21 kt... It goes without saying that all the Nuclear warheads available currently hold a superior yield than 20 kt. -- Since France is invading in this case, if I somehow were to lead the armed forces, I would suggest invading on two fronts : from the south west towards the major cities such as Stuttgart, Frankfurt and Munich. Obviously this will require a large amount of troops, aircrafts and tanks. Persistent bombing of the major cities will play a role in instigating a military occupation of the cities named earlier. The second front would be via waterway. French Navy would take the English Channel, french troops would invade from the north and take Hamburg and Bremen. Thus setting a safe connection from France to Germany for shipment of supplies and re-enforcement. Once this is accomplished, this front would set for aim the capture of Berlin. The success of my plan of attack depends of course of my opponent's action.
War Game: Germany(defender) vs. France(attacker)

April 30th, 2020 German city of Bremerhaven. France reaches German shores. Days later, french troops succeed at seizing the city, mainly due to the superior navy fleet [1]. The city falls rather quickly since the french are able to send a great number of troops through the English Channel. The capture of this city is essential, as it is key to Germany's maritime trade. [2] Bremerhaven's capture means that german ships leaving the country, from Bremen and Bremerhaven are seized. This impairs the German economy. Reinforcements begin to arrive for the next phase : The invasion of Bremen. May 5th, 2020 Bremen. Shelling and persisted bombardment of the city. May 8th, 2020 Bremen. The superior french air force [3] secures near total air domination of the city and its surrounding areas. Despite meeting a tough opponent on the battlefield, the french succeed at taking control of the city on May 30th. This means that the port is now used for bringing in goods for the military. The capture of the Bremen-Flughafen International airport facilitates even more the transport of goods and troops from France to Germany. June 1st, 2020 Franco-German border. The french forces are divided in two fronts : One aimed at the capture of Frankfurt The second aimed south for Stuttgart [1] Global Firepower : http://www.globalfirepower.com... [2] Bremerhaven, Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] Global Firepower : http://www.globalfirepower.com...
Should freedom be applied to all people before equality

Rebuttals 1. Freedom brings about equality. We see that the only reason there was ever an equality issue in the US, is cause of one simple fact. African-Americans weren't free, if we had a society in which apthe were free from the start, equality would not be an issue. If every race that ever came to America was, instead of being called an immigrant, a free person. Well this argument wouldn't be nesseccary. When you give every human the exact same free rights, equality just happens cause if everyone is free then there is equality. Now the negation might bring up that fact that races can still discriminate. The amount of people that would, would be very small as if everyone just was free and no titles were used on anyone such as minority. Then it would be a small population of those who discriminate and those who do, would be hurting themselves by losing business. This is a bit of supposition. I’m not entirely sure what to make of it, but the basic contention seems to be that applying this still undefined “freedom” will provide the context for equity. I don’t know that is worth over parsing this issue, however, if the two are mutually exclusive, and the insistence that one must follow the other, then I am bound to say it is not so. Lacking any freedom, all men are equal as Jefferson said. Further, equality has existed where less personal freedoms have been realized. 2. Equality first doesn't bring freedom If you, right off the bat, forced people to treat everybody the same. Well then you would only have people falsely being nice to others as they are forced to do so by the government. Theres no freedom there, and instead of mending relations between the races (which we shouldn't even be calling in the first place) we are damaging them further as they build more hatred since they don't have the freedom to decide for themselves. If instead we gave them freedom first then assimilation would take its course. This assumes some use of force is necessary to be considered equal. The state of being equal can exist while people still don’t accept the fact, or are being “forced” to do anything. It is also odd to assume that freedom for all exist while some are being denied equality is freedom at all. Closing That pro insists that there is an order in this is odd in the first place – when I consider the insistence I release that if order (freedom before equality) must be evaluated, then for freedom to exist for some, equality must be in fact first. Enjoying freedom without equity would be no true freedom at all, and if freedom MUST be for all, then we must have equity for ALL for freedom for all to work.
Should freedom be applied to all people before equality

My opponent started off by bringing up the Declaration of Independence saying "all men are created equal" Now that is true that the Declaration of Indepedence says that, but what's another way to describe Independence? Freedom. Within a document pertaining to the freedom of a people, were the words "all men are created equal" which supports my very first point in my opening argument that Freedom brings about Equality. So thank you to my opponent for supporting me. "denying equality is denying man his nature and no man can inherent his God given rights as some subhuman lacking equality." In this argument my opponent failed to realize the very fact that equality is a result of freedom, there is no rights for any human if there is no freedom first applied to that human being. My opponent then tries to bring up freedom being "abstract" and that my argument has no certain stance as freedom is losley defined. However, freedom isn't abstract at all, freedom does have a definition as it is natural. Freedom is a natural right that we all have in which we do as we please. Of course my opponent could argue that doing as we please will lead to the harming of others, however, that is why we have government, to prevent people from abusing freedom. Freedom isn't murdering, freedom is not having somebody else tell you what to do. The argument I have made is that of logical common sense. Freedom is a natural right, not given to us by any government but by ourselves as humans. Equality, which is very good, cannot happen without freedom. If we as a people don't recognize freedom first, then you cannot recognize equality. My opponent mentioned how this is a result of arguments pertaining to Indianas religious freedom law. The goal being to given people the freedom to deny participating in a practice against their religion. That doesn't haram equality, as equality has to do with people being equal in all respects. Denying service to someone is excersising freedom and has no touch on equality. Whereas it is only logical that freedom must always be applied before equality. I urge a vote in stance of freedom first.
Should freedom be applied to all people before equality

"all men are created equal" - Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson) This immortal declaration sure seem like the right place to start this discussion within the context of American equality. Who better to start the ball rolling on what equality is than Thomas Jefferson, and it"s hard to find a root more substantial than our very declaration of independence. If it was just as simple as the statement above, I would close my case and wait for the voting. But it may not be that cut and dry. What were our founding fathers saying? They sure weren't talking about slaves, or women. Or were they? What, in the simplest sense, Jefferson was saying is " all men share a common human nature, but he sure was not naive man, Jefferson that is. He knew that all men were not exact copies of one another. That all skills, all abilities were not common at birth. So, let"s push further. It has to mean equal somehow. According to Jefferson, man itself was "created" with this equal. Endowed (bequeath) rights. In the very nature of man is equality and rights are received as a part of that equality. In other words, denying equality is denying man his nature and no man can inherent his God given rights as some subhuman lacking equality. That equality innate to man is what allows him to enjoy freedom, and peruse his happiness. A slave was still "equal" but not given his "rights" or "freedoms". The world is imperfect, freedoms had to follow, but equity existed as a part of simply being human. Part of the problem for Pro is even more fundamental to this argument. Freedom, as he discusses it, is an abstraction. As an example, "freedom of the press" was enumerated in the bill of rights. That is tangible. I can know what it is, and tell you what it is. So rather than discuss "freedom" as an ethereal concept we need more descriptors, move from the metaphysical to the tangible. What freedoms must be "applied to all people" before equality. Aside from being an awkward sentence, it sure seems that the freedoms pro wishes to discuss are tangible, hence having the ability to be "applied". We don"t need to be overly obtuse. Pros debate was spurred by recent events relating to "equality" for all citizens regardless of sexuality. So, the intimation is we are discussing "equality before the law". This concept is well explained in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 amendment of the US constitution. What then we are discussing is not about amorphous "freedoms" but a conflict between equality innate to humans as Jefferson wrote, and backed by law through our constitution, and some undefined "freedom". What freedom would that be? The freedom to deny the essence of humanity, equality? No freedoms are in jeopardy when the constitution is protecting equality, it is nonsensical. The equality IS first, and freedoms as pro seems to admit are "applied".
Should freedom be applied to all people before equality

(Like before no sources needed, just make sure your facts are correct, unless it's not a factual argument) 1. Freedom brings about equality. We see that the only reason there was ever an equality issue in the US, is cause of one simple fact. African-Americans weren't free, if we had a society in which apthe were free from the start, equality would not be an issue. If every race that ever came to America was, instead of being called an immigrant, a free person. Well this argument wouldn't be nesseccary. When you give every human the exact same free rights, equality just happens cause if everyone is free then there is equality. Now the negation might bring up that fact that races can still discriminate. The amount of people that would, would be very small as if everyone just was free and no titles were used on anyone such as minority. Then it would be a small population of those who discriminate and those who do, would be hurting themselves by losing business. 2. Equality first doesn't bring freedom If you, right off the bat, forced people to treat everybody the same. Well then you would only have people falsely being nice to others as they are forced to do so by the government. Theres no freedom there, and instead of mending relations between the races (which we shouldn't even be calling in the first place) we are damaging them further as they build more hatred since they don't have the freedom to decide for themselves. If instead we gave them freedom first then assimilation would take its course.
Barack Obama has Violated the US Constitution and Should be Impeached

ImpeachmentI'm fairly sure violation of the constitution constitutes "abuse or violation of some public trust.".First AmendmentMy opponent created an elaborate strawman claiming that when I said: "a coordinated attack on [the] occupy movement throughout the united states occurred orchestrated by the CIA".I meant this:"President Obama "coordinated" an "attack on [the] Occupy movement".I'm sorry but there was no way you could have got the second from the first you have blatantly misquoted me in order to further your own argument. My argument was that one of two possibilities is likely to be correct:1. Obama knew about the CIA plot to crack down on the occupy movement but hid behind the CIA for public relations reasons in which case he has violated first amendment freedom of speech rights and should be impeached in order to insure constitution still carries meaning.2. Obama has lost control of the CIA in a way than no previous president has. In this case impeachment (while not necessarily legal) is necessary so an effective commander in chief that can bring the CIA back under control.[Additional note] Even if Obama knew about the crack down it doesn't mean that he hasn't lost control of the CIA.Fourth AmendmentMy opponent again misleads any potential readers by claiming that I sourced claim that Obama knew about NSA spying to the BBC article whereas in reality I sourced it to an RT article in which an anonymous "high-ranking NSA official" is quoted as stating: "Obama did not halt the operation but rather let it continue," [1].To claim that Obama was powerless to stop the program is false at the very least he had the power to arrange for a leak of the program which would lead to a similar outcome to the Snowden revelations but as the high-ranking NSA official quoted by Russia Today stated "Obama did not halt the operation" implies that he had the authority to do so. Sixth Amendment "PRO fails to provide even one example of a US Citizen who has been deprived of his or her 6th Amendment rights."(At least) One US citizen has been detained without due process in Guantanamo [2] and many more are at least alleged (mainstream media doesn't like to cover the NDAA and so it's difficult to decipher exactly what's going on) to have been detained under the NDAA [3] this should be enough to call a constitutional breach."in the event that a US citizen were to be unconstitutionally deprived of his or her 6th amendment rights, his or her remedy lies not with the president's impeachment but with a plea for review of his case by the judiciary."Just pointing out that this is totally irrelevant.[1] http://rt.com...[2] http://www.dod.mil... [3]http://www.newsfollowup.com...
Barack Obama has Violated the US Constitution and Should be Impeached

First AmendmentYes con is correct I should have said FBI instead of CIA but other than that my point still stands. You ask: "But, the question of 'what first amendment rights were violated' and 'whose rights were violated', PRO leaves unanswered.". As I stated in my opening argument protesters around the country were dispersed by police in coordinated action and this is not disputed by any news organisation (or any right wing nut job propaganda mills as I have included fox news) [1] [2] [3] [4] this directly violates the freedom of speech of those involve and to claim that a midnight raid of peaceful protesters by police does not violate the right to freedom of speech enshrined in the first amendment is shear ignorance.Yes the FBI is a distinct entity but is ultimately under the control of the Obama administration and as such Obama carries at least some responsibility and as I said last time if Obama was ignorant of a nation wide police operation then he is ineffectual and needs to be impeached (even if not necessarily legal although politicians can more or less decide the criteria for impeachment at will).Fourth Amendment It seems that con has accepted Obama knew about the NSA spying and has decided to argue that Obama lacked the power to NSA policy. This is obviously incoherent as it is way within the bounds of an executive order to do so.The Sixth AmendmentFirst I would like to explain why I sited [5] was because there is a US citizen on that list but regardless I don't see the importance of those held without trial being US citizens, from my limited knowledge of the constitution I don't remember anywhere it stating that the rights enshrined in the bill of rights only applying to US citizens and the US government even admits itself that there are people held without trial or charge [6].[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://edition.cnn.com... [3] http://www.foxnews.com... [4] http://usnews.nbcnews.com... [5] http://www.dod.mil... [6] https://www.aclu.org...