BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The United States federal government shall substantially increase it's funding for astriod

I will start this phase of the debate by talking about the one topic i did not state and slipped my mine, Armageddon Armageddon is the point witch im confused ... You thing if Armageddon breaks lose we the people are going to a at asteroid? like i stated earlier AIR no air no life for human. Technology i would like to say do i think the U. S. will be able to withstand a task so large... inside a tech world, Ask your self this how many people would be able to program, control, watch, coordinate these robots.Plus what about repairs and maintenance for the robots? how would the people who know hoe to fix these robots get there (remember no air for a long time period. US economy there is a fine line between people giving money for good causes and the gov't taking money...what might this have to do with the debate might you ask...well i see the U.S needs money, housing, law, food, and a Allie. these things are necessary for a good system of equal-liberty so to speak so we have food a Allie buy we don't have money housing nor law in space. Whats the chance or probability of the U.S going through with this ... i feel that the U.S might as well try yo take china... Another topic i forgot to talk about is FUEL, fuel is necessary for almost every thing in this operation of space. FUEL to power the ships for taking off as seen on this link http://answers.yahoo.com... , FUEL to power some form of a drill, FUEL to heat housing for people and more. And on this note I END ( sorry i don't know how to make links ...)
Resolved: The United States federal government shall substantially increase it's funding for astriod

LengthActually my opponent here is wrong, we don't have to send men to mine we can have machines do it for us and secondly it is a process that only takes months not years. http://www.spaceanswers.com... US Economy Two the total time and money spent into such a project could be catastrophic for the reason of the U.S is in debt already.Here my opponent states that it will cost to much but as I stated in my last round that we can get $150 billion from an astriod that only costs $2.6 billion which can improve the US economy drasticly. http://www.space.com...AirThree the total limit is air there would have to be a submittable amount of air every where they go in witch we may not have.I've already refuted this.TechnologyFour the technology is not there yet let me ask you this do you see giant space stations with millions and millions of air with them NO YOU DO NOT, it would take nearly ten to twenty years just for a hint of this happing. My opponent here states that we don't have the technology, but as I stated above that JAXA has done so and not only that, but NASA currently is working on these missions right now! http://www.nasa.gov...PaySix what about pay what would you pay the people there the U.S.A would probably spend more money on one worker then the entire operation. My opponent questions pay, but as you see here NASA will continue to get it's funding from the US federal government and people will continue getting payments.ArmageddonMy opponent did not touch this arguement so please extend it across the board.(Side note- I will be bussy this weekend between work and drill. I please ask you to not to respond to this debate untill Sunday. Thank you!)
Resolved: The United States federal government shall substantially increase it's funding for astriod

This may be true but although the U.S.A needs money they cant always reline on space. For one reason it would take years just to get to a asteroid. Two the total time and money spent into such a project could be catastrophic for the reason of the U.S is in debt already. Three the total limit is air there would have to be a submittable amount of air every where they go in witch we may not have. Four the technology is not there yet let me ask you this do you see giant space stations with millions and millions of air with them NO YOU DO NOT, it would take nearly ten to twenty years just for a hint of this happing. Five (this is my option here) who would be willing to go to a asteroid for years and years with no sight of there family (i know i wouldn't) friends or even loved ones ... Six what about pay what would you pay the people there the U.S.A would probably spend more money on one worker then the entire operation. END (by the way this is how i end my statements...if your wondering)
Resolved: The United States federal government shall substantially increase it's funding for astriod

"Substantially increase government funding."The US federal government will reallocate $10 billion dollars inorder to mine astriods. It costs $2.6 to mine the actuall astriod, but the rest is to figure the cost refining the ore and in case something goes wrong. http://www.space.com...... per US law if NASA doesn't use this money it gets taken away. So we wouldn't be wasting any money. The need and why we need it.95% of the world's REM supply belongs to China. http://www.forbes.com.... China is starting to crack down on REM exports to the US leading to almost chaos. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) You may think no big deal, but if it goes any futher it will lead to US crackdown on China and with the US trying to put leverage on the US China will most likely do the same leading to an economic down of the US and then China then the world. Why is this you may ask? It is the fact that the US is entirely reliant on China and the fact that China is also to reliant on the US if one falls they both do.2nd senerio.We all know that REM are what we use in batteries, cell phones, and even military technology. So it is key that the wealth gets spread around. Since China is hoarding them the US could try to force China to give them up. This is very likely to happen since nation's in the past of done this type of thing. Look at Japan when they attack the US due to the US oil emargo on them. This will lead to a possible WW3 and this senerio is likely to happen because once you run out of REMs then you're out.http://www.projectworldawareness.com... is a war that will hurt many nation and has a potention to go nuclear and the world will likely end due to this episode. (“The Asian Ascent: Opportunity for Peace or Precondition for War?,” International Studies Perspectives, Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages 36-42) Economic pay back!It's $195 billion per astriod! http://www.space.com...'s think about the trade of it'll take $2.7 billion to mine while the profit is $195 billion. With this kind of profit the US will be able to finally start to pay off it's debts which will increase trade interest with the US from other nations.
The Dutch Royal Family should step down

I"ll accept your challengeFirst of all, monarchies are cheaper than republics. Just compare two countries like Portugal and Spain. Although Spain is a lot bigger than Portugal the costs of the monarchy are way lower than the Portuguese President. And a non-elected head of State is also an advantage, as there is no needs to fund ex-presidents, as it occurs in most republics.And let me remind that government spending and the welfare state generated this crisis. The monarchy supported the end of the welfare state knowing that it will be better for the country. If it was an elected president and from a left-wing party the Dutch would suffer much more with the crisis.The royals also help to stimulate the economy only by being royals. Imagine the money that was generated from tourism for the coronation of king William Alexander. Or products made with the royals face. The monarchy's popularity helps stimulating the economy much more than a president's.
The Dutch Royal Family should step down

I find that King Willem-Alexander and his family should make room for a president. I have several points to prove that I am right. Money is my main argument. The King is an incredibly expensive Institution, due to the financial crisis in the Euro zone (thanks for that, Mediterranean...) the Dutch government is rather poor, so they ask the people to pay more taxes, they spend less, you name it, and that's bad, both of it, first, it is always a stupid idea to make the consumer poorer, if nobody buys stuff, nobody sells stuff. Then the non-spending policy, the only way a government could help in a crisis, is to inject the economy with money, okay, they will be a bit poorer for a while, but when the economy starts growing again, they'll earn it back in no time. If we'd throw out the Royals, the state would save a huge amount of money.
The USA should lower the drinking age to 13 to promote more responisible drinking

I am not 100% infavor of 13, but I do agree that 21 is too old in the US for a legal drink. So I would like to debate this subject. If my opponent would accept I would like to argue on 18 or no age restrictions, however, I am not against arguing the position of 13 as I am agreeing to do. Just a 1 sentence in the start of round 2 clarifying the age you would like to continue with :) I know you wrote 13, but just thinking outside the box - maybe something that you have not prepped for yet and tested your positions. .. 13, 18, or no age limit :) In any event, alcohol is a naturally occurring substance in the world. consumption of which under 18 years of age should be monitored by parents and guardians and not the Federal Government. Any argument that attempts to pose limits on sale and consumption based on any study of safety is sliding down the path of the 18th amendment towards prohibition. Prohibition did not limit remove do what it proposed, just as the current 21 year old restirction does not prevent those younger from obtaining alcohol. The only reason 21 is enforced is because the states receive highway funding for this age. The age of majority is 18 for every other aspect of American life. If such restrictions should be placed on citizens by the Federal government, then it should be congruent throughout. One can vote at 18, go to war at 18, fight for everything that is American, but cannot come home to have beer? Age restrictions from the Federal government should be 18 or none at all. But I can argue 13 as well.
The USA should lower the drinking age to 13 to promote more responisible drinking

I will now state some information to intrinsically clarify the round. Reason why this topic: I had this topic for a debate in congress and a lot of people actually believed in this. Also a friend yesterday told me how this would work so I am curious to hear more on it. Definition: Drinking=of or relating to the act of drinking of alcohol So yeah pretty much anything included in the restriction to not drink until your 18+ in the USA is topical for this round. Anything that isn't included like water for example or lemonade isn't topical. WE are debating about the "grown up" kind of drinking.
All High Schools should have recess

Thank you. To start it off, I will have three main contentions. These are: 1. Recess improves classroom behavior. 2. Recess improves academics. 3. Recess has numerous health benefits. Recess improves classroom behavior. High schoolers typically have a school day for about 7 hours. These hours are typically jammed pack with acamics. For example, I am in high school and I have to rush from class to class because it's a full day. I only get breaks for lunch (25 minutes) and study halls, which, of course, you are expected to only study. The teenage mind has trouble consentrating on so many different concepts with few or no breaks. With recess, it allows a break to let your brain relax and soak in the information and take a breather. This helps seperate the beginning and end of the day, leaving the student more refreshed for the following periods after. This website shows us stidy done. It is conducted on third graders, but with high schoolers having more work, the results are significant. http://www.sciencedaily.com... Recess improves academics. Fact. Numerous studies have proven this. http://www.nytimes.com...http://www.cbn.com...https://www.alphabetworkout.com... Even principals believe this to be true. Getting freash air and excersize helps your brain to become, if you will, smarter. Having a break will improve concentration and eagerness to learn. Wil this being said, no recess has students forcing their brains to listen, but their brains are reluctant.Recess has numerous health benefits. Apart from getting good excerisize, it's proven to help with healthy lunches, improves social skills and sportsmanship skills with games, kids without recess tend to weigh more, and healthy for your mind to take a break. These websites show he studies done to prove this contention. http://blogs.edweek.org... http://www.pulsejournal.com...Now back to Neg.
Women should be paid less than men

When it comes to GCSEs women, in the past 5 years, have done 8.8% better than men- 73% of women get A*-C grades whereas 64% of men get A*-C grades. In 2010, 2011 and 2012 55% of women went to university whilst only 45% of men attended. These percentages are still the same today. However, equality in the workplace is still a major issue in today's society, but why ? Men are not better than women and in the same way women are not better than men - gender is equal, just like race, sexuality and religion. The gender pay gap is at 14%, women are effectively working for free.
Violent video games, banning of

I think that violent video games should be banned because what good are they doing to society!!! Violent video games encourage a more violent society. The exposure to violence such as killing and assault. The extent to this brutality has become ridiculous and we are letting people play them for hours on end. What is this doing to our young people who are influenced by what they watch. For example there was an 14 year old boy committed murder with a hammer after repeatedly playing manhunt which displays the same kind of violent behavior
Violent video games, banning of

I appriciate your concern for saving lives. it is quite noble of you. But I feel that you are looking at the solution that is not rational. Once again rather than placing the responsibility on parents to take care of their children as most do. you think that it is more reasonable to take away millions of peoples rights?As a question of morals and what is wrong with playing video games, you are pushinhing your opinion onto others. That is morally wrong. Many would argue they enjoy playing games because its a fun stress releiver, its not reality because they are smart enough to tell the difference between real and fake.You have yet to accept the fact that the cause of these violent acts really have to do with video games or mental disorders. It could be simply that they are mesed up in the head and its a coincdence that they play those games. My last round I will summarize why everyone should vote for me. I await your closing argument
Violent video games, banning of

I have given you many examples on what the police are calling copycat crime and that the police are taking very seriously!. because this is an issue on the rise The government is supposed to do what is best for his/her country,weigh up the consequences and benefits and make a decision on what is best and if it saves lives to ban violent video games then so be it that is what we should do! So you think that people being able to waste there lives sitting in front of a screen for hours on end killing people is more important than even just one of the lives out of the many lives lost due to copycat crime from violent video games???? You put the word children in capital letters when you were talking about what I thought well why? what does it matter if the people killing are 17yrs old or 28yrs old the bottom line is that people are getting murdered not the age of the people killing them!!!. And you said would I put a ban on cars because they can be used in violence well no I would not because cars have a useful purpose but what useful purpose do violent video games have?! answer me that. And you said we should ban all movies with violence well no because there is a difference between when you watch someone shoot someone else in a movie that is not you pulling the trigger but in a game you are the one killing. Violence maybe human nature but it is certainly not something that should be glorified and encouraged on violent video games!. When children are growing up we teach them right from wrong by rewarding them for good behavior and punishing them for bad but in a violent video game the players are rewarded for killing someone by being moved up on a level or awarded a new gun or armor. Why this goes against basic moral standards. A survey of 1,102 adolescents found that 97 percent had played video games in the past day. Although most parents checked the censor"s rating before allowing their child to purchase it, 50 percent of boys and 14 percent of girls favored games with an "M" (mature) or "AO" (adult-only) rating, which implies a high degree of violence This is cause for concern. Research has long shown a cause-effect relationship between video game violence and aggression among children and youth who play it. And morally should people really take pleasure in killing and assaulting and torturing people???.
Violent video games, banning of

Let me get this straight. Out of a handful of violent act of CHILDREN you think that the government should, against the MAJORITY of peoples wills.. Ban Violent Video games for ALL PEOPLESo we are going to hurt businesses cut jobs, and the economy... Because you think that some parents have a hard time doing their job?You logic applies to cars as well. We should not drive cars because it can be used in violent acitons, And lets ban violent movies as well we will cure all violence with this!except... believe it or not. Violence is human nature. Before games, before movies, we still had killers, school bullies. and bad people. They do not need video games to do such a thing.I'll post a list of studies that refute your arguementhttp://www.independent.co.uk...http://psychcentral.com...http://www.theguardian.com...
Violent video games, banning of

The logic is that kids are goanna grow up and be the adults one day so if you look at the bigger picture then think about what is best for everyone long term and that is not exposing young people to violent video games and them normalising it in there heads. In the game grand theft auto the player can decapitate police officers, kill them with a sniper rifle, massacre them with a chainsaw, and set them on fire should people of any age be taking pleasure in doing this in a game I think not. I have just given you examples of video games pushing people into committing violent crimes. None of these people were in the correct mental state but it was the video games that showed them how to do what they did. It is very hard for many parents to stop there children to playing violent video games with friends and older sibling who will play these video games with and there is a lot of pressure in schools to play these games therefore people feel like they have to play it to feel accepted in schools it is very easy to play these games at a friends house or borrow the game or I have encountered people selling these games to there friends in school. But if the government puts a ban on these games then they will slowly start to not play it. Violence as entertainment is simply immoral, if society wants to stop violence then why use entertainment to glorify it this is just a mixed message. How many more people have to die before we just our common sense and stop people playing violent video games, tell me this, what good does it do?!?! And no I do not want to ban water because water does good the human race would struggle to live with out water but the human race could quite happily live with out violent video games corrupting the minds of people.
Violent video games, banning of

Once again the flaw in your arguement is two things:1) You are trying to enforce a government ban on games for all people. However your exmaples is less than 1% of the gaming populations, you failed to list sources of these events. Were they mentally stable? You also take away the right for parents to raise their children and make cthe choice.You listed cases of kids doing harm but want to ban the games for adults? Please explain the logic for that as well.2) With your stance, we might as well ban water, because people drown in water. Ban alchohol because some people abuse it. Ban pressure cookers because of the boston boming, ban forks because people have been stabbed by them. We should ban diving all together because of car accidents...We should ban the internet because people are on it too much and it too, can lead up to a homocide.Once again. Your opinion on what is right and wrong does not constitute a law to forbid people from playing a game. As I said before Take repsonsibility for your actions do not force the government to do it for you. That is not logical that is lazy. If you are a parent, and you know your child has violent tendancies dont let him play.If there are well over half a billion violent video game players, and you give me individual cases of manyve .00001% do you really think that the rest of the 99.99999 percent should be affected because of it? Your solution is radical and unethical. There are smarter and wiser solutions as I have mentioned twice now. Parenting is the key.Violent kids are going to be violent with or without video games. One might say at least they get to act it out in a virtual world rather than in a physical world.
Violent video games, banning of

I agree that people should be able to do what they want in there free time but within reason if it is something that causes them harm then why let them do that to them self's. There is a specific issue of copycat crimes which is when a player of a game will copy what they see happening on the game they are playing. I am not trying to stop you playing your games because of one 14 year old boy there are many other cases like this there was a teenager in America who killed 3 men because he was imitating what he saw in his video game or a teenager who set of a car bomb killing and killed 77 people with that and a few other attacks as well, or a 16 year old was banned from playing halo 3 so stole his parents gun and shot his mum in the head and his dad although his dad survived and this teenager blamed what he did on video game addiction or the 17 year old that bet a 7 year old girl to death trying out move she had seen in a video game. There are many more cases I could give but I do not think I need to because it only takes one horrible death to realize that people have died and for what so that people can get hooked on a video game and play it for 3 hours a day instead of doing other things that could be so much more beneficial to them?! Playing violent video games normalises violence to many people and the difference between watching someone shoot someone else on tv and doing that your self on a video game is that in a game you can be the one pulling the trigger, making the decision to kill someone. You do not need statistics to see that these video games are hurting people and not doing any good how many more innocent people have to die before we wake up and do what is best for society and ban these violent video games.
Violent video games, banning of

I will be arguing against the idea of banning violent video games. There are three points I will focus on why banninging video games is wrong1) No one should take away an indivduals right to choose what they do on their free time.2) Just looking at one game, call of duty there are 100 MILLION players. How many of those are causing violence on their free time? You gave an example of one 14 year old boy. As we debate I will go into statistics and sources3) Why should the government ban something that PARENTS should control not the GOVERMENT. Why should adults not play a game because some 14 year old was not proerply supervised by a parent. He was allowed to play a game that was rated M. Should I a grown man, not be allowed to play a game because of that poor choice? That is illogical.