BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A border fence is useless

Yeah, I'm for sure a technical debater. Parli ftw! Anyways. In this debate I believe there a firmly two ways to vote. In the first world, you as a judge, can believe that the resolution should be, "There are alternatives to a border fence which would be much more cost effective as well as effective in general. " However this resolution shift completely falls under by entire abuse story which goes un-refuted. My opponent concedes that shifting his position halfway through the round is a bad thing and he concedes that a shift in position is a reason to vote him down. Thus this road will only end in a loss for my opponent. Secondly, you as a judge, can believe that the resolution is, as stated, "A border fence is useless". In this world all that has to happen is an extension of my original article that a cite and an extension of my ladder arguments. Specifically I make a point in my last speech that postulates that there would be no way to jump a 50 foot border wall with a ladder. This argument goes dropped. Thus the border wall does do something. Secondarily though, even if that analysis wasn't to be believed then I still have the possibility of finding the illegal immigrants because they leave behind suspicious ladders. My argument is simply that the border patrol would know a rough area to search if they found a suspicious looking ladder. This gives a border fence a benefit as opposed to the world of no border fence where the border patrol would never know where to search (no suspicious ladders). Thus, once again, I can only see a loss for my opponent. Finally my opponent brings up alternatives. I argue that both can happen at the same time and that point is dropped. Thereby even if one was to buy all of my opponents analysis they can still both happen and border fences are still useful.
A border fence is useless

Sure, I'll debate this. And I'll disagree. A border fence just simply isn't useless. Here's an interesting article on how it has decreased immigration back to the 1970's levels. http://www.latimes.com... Secondly I'll argue that a 51 foot ladder would be really conspicuous and would alert authorities that someone had recently crossed the border wall. This would allow the border patrol to better search the vicinity where the person crossed. Anyways, state your three point case. I'm excited to refute, and thanks for the debate!
A border fence is useless

Just a little disclaimer: Illegal immigration is a problem. If you believe that illegal immigration is just fine, this debate isn't for you. If you are for loosening regulations, as I am, feel free to debate. Because illegal immigration is a problem, people look for a solution. To many, the most practical solution seems to be a fence. Now, I'm not saying that it should be completely open. There should be some fence, but not a big 50 foot tall one. Look, if you build a 50 foot wall, someone will build a 51 foot ladder. In this debate, I plan to discuss a few issues, including: 1) Explicitly spell out why the border fence wouldn't work 2) Find more reasonable alternatives 3) Understand how and why people immigrate illegally, then attack those things.
all children should have mobile phones

"All children should have mobile phones to contact 911 or their parents and family and that to me out-weighs everything else." 1.) Pro stated "All" then changed his wording to "all that can afford one" 2.) Pro claims children ages 3-12 can produce enough money to afford a phone and monthly bill but does not state how. 3.) Pro insinuates that the government should purchase 16+ million cell phones for children. his previous "outweighs all" statement suggest that a mobile phone is more important than food, clothing, education, health care, and shelter. Questions for pro (please answer 1 by 1) 1.) Is having a cell phone more important than having adequate food? 2.) How are children ages 6-10 going to fund having a cell phone on their own? 3.) If a child is abducted or being assaulted, what is stoping the aggressor from taking the phone from the child or physically prohibiting them from using it? A lack of answers to these questions should discredit Pro's stance in the eyes of the voter. Pro, I'm willing to answer any questions you may have.
all children should have mobile phones

This makes a reckless assumption that all children have individuals that can afford the finical burden of providing a cell phone. I'm going to view this as a presidential debate type event. "All children should have mobile phones" and "this outweighs everything else" is a very ignorant statement. "All children should have adequate food" certainly outweighs them having a mobil phone. Question: For the 16 million children living in poverty within the United States, how should these phones be financed?
Man made global warming does not occur

Since pro forfeited round one i will start. Green house gasses- gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. Direct Carbon Dioxide Emissions. When we consume energy derived from fossil fuels the generation of the energy produces greenhouse gases. In 2003, the average household produced 12.4 tons of carbon dioxide from its household operations and approximately 11.7 tons from its automotive uses. Indirect Carbon Dioxide Emissions. All remaining energy consumed in the economy results in indirect greenhouse gas emissions. When we buy a new product, that product has substantial embodied energy in it from its manufacture, packaging and delivery. Also, when we visit an air-conditioned store or eat an avocado in New York that was grown in California, we produce indirect carbon dioxide emissions. In 2003, total indirect carbon emissions per household were 35 tons. Total Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Across the entire US economy, total carbon dioxide emissions per household totaled a staggering 59 tons or 118,000 pounds in 2003. When compared to the rest of the world, US households account for over six times as much carbon dioxide emissions than the remainder of the world per year, on average All carbon emissions ultimately can be traced back to the consumer. A^"team from the Union of Concerned Scientists allocated our indirect emissions to various consumer practices. They then combined the direct emissions and the indirect allocations for each functional consumer activity. The resulting analysis is shown at the right in the pie chart. About 12% of total greenhouse gas emissions (or 14,160 pounds of carbon dioxide per household) result from just growing, preparing and shipping our food. And 6% of emissions (or about 7,080 pounds of carbon dioxide per household) derive from the delivery of medical services to consumers. The US is by far the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases compared to other industrialized nations. The US comprises about 4% of the earth"s population, but emits about 25% of the total global greenhouse gases. The chart on the right shows that US carbon dioxide emissions, at over 20 tons per person annually, are over six times that of the global average (ignoring the US). When compared to 1.3 billion people of China, the 290 million people in the US emit over seven times as much, per person. Viewed in aggregate, the 290 million Americans emit 65% more carbon dioxide annually than the 1.3 billion Chinese do in total. And when compared to the 1.1 billion people of India, the 290 million Americans emit over 20 times as much, per person. Again, looked at in aggregate, the 290 million Americans emit 5.5 times the amount of carbon dioxide that the entire Indian nation of 1.1 billion people does in total.
Winds kick Brass

Totally bored and don't want to talk about Halo or Call of Duty, so let's debate on band. Just for fun =D Certainly not too serious Woodwinds have a much wider range in musical styles and a much larger pitch range! There are also much more woodwinds than brass instruments. Let's list them: piccalo flute alto flute bass flute Eb clarinet Bb clarinet bass clarinet oboe basoon soprano saxophone alto saxophone tenor saxophone baritone saxophone and I'm sure I forgot some! Oh! And there's a saying in band that the farther you sit from the director's podium the stupider you are (sorry drummers!);and being that brass sits behind the woodwinds.... well... hmmmm
Winds kick Brass

Okay, I'll bite. Brass instruments might not be superior to woodwinds, but they're anything but inferior. You listed a lot of woodwinds, but just because there's a lot of them doesn't mean that they're better. Quality over quantity is the saying that comes to mind. But brass instruments aren't without their diversity either; there's the trumpet, tuba, trombone, cornet, French horn, bugle, and variations on the sort. Yes, the brass sits behind woodwinds, but the reason orchestras are arranged as they are is how loud the instruments are. Woodwinds have to be close to the conductor in order to be heard, while brasses have a much grander and richer sound. Trumpets, the most common of the brass, almost always takes the melody in orchestral music, while woodwinds provide only the harmony. Brass instruments are seen in a variety of musical forms. They're found in orchestras of course, but are also common in jazz and swing music, and in a lot of pop. Ska, rock, reggae... some punk bands use brass frequently. Woodwinds are rarely seen outside of a band; brass instruments are more adaptable and useful for all types of artists. (By the way, I play the clarinet, this is just for fun)
A Christian Cannot Lose His Salvation

Greetings, everyone. I pray and hope that we will be having a wonderful debate.I will be arguing for the doctrine of Eternal Security (once saved, forever saved). Con, on the other hand, will be arguing that salvation can be lost.Rules:1. You must be a professing Christian. 2. No trolling or profanity. 3. I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you wish to debate this topic, then add a comment. If you find a way to accept this, then you lose the entire debate.4. The first round is for acceptance.5. Your arguments must be based on the Protestant Canon. The Protestant Canon includes 66 books (1). This means that you cannot bring up anything along the lines of the Apocrypha or the Book of Mormon. Without further ado, let us cheefully begin this debate. Have fun!Sources:1. http://carm.org...
A Christian Cannot Lose His Salvation

Hello friend. I look forward to the debate, I'll start in round 2 after you give your opening points. This is a little bit of a devils advocate position for me. Here is what I believe 1. In as much as it depends on the finished work of Jesus on the cross, I am safe. [1] 2. In as much as it depends on the choice and calling of God, I am safe [2] 3. If it in any way depends on my choice or my works, I have reason to pray for grace. 4. Grace is good [4] [1] Heb 9:24-28 24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. [2] 2 Tim 1:8-10 NASB 8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, 10 but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, [3] - saved for the debate [4] Eph 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Donald Trump is inept at finances.

It is easy to make claims, much harder to back them up. Can you back up your claim of my [0] source being bias? I also have two more articles on the same topic. [1][2] Also, having a net worth of 4 billion only proves Donald Trump is charismatic and greedy. Sources 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. http://www.cbsnews.com...
Donald Trump is inept at finances.

First of all, I would like to point out that side proposition is the first person to rely on Vox.com and Thinkprogress.org as credible sources. If nothing else, these sources have already negated every point side proposition has made today.As we probably all know, Donald Trump is the current owner of The Trump Organization, a multi-national conglomerate that continues to operate today [1][2]. The primary focus, however, of Trump's investments is real estate and he has proved incredibly adept both at financing and managing his business endeavors.Regarding side proposition's points on Trump's investment in Trump International Golf Links of Scotland, the golf course is still up and running today [3]. I guess this is the quality of information you get when you get your sources from thinkprogress.com.In closing, we have seen today that Trump's business acumen, regardless of your political views, is undeniable. Side proposition today not only seems confused about the resolution but is, in fact, misinformed. Moreover, side pro seems incapable of providing a single credible source, therefore nullifying every point they have previously made. The proposition has, today, let their political bias cloud their reasoning, utterly destroying their argument and thereby ending the debate.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...;[2]http://www.investopedia.com...;[3]http://www.trumpgolfscotland.com...;
Donald Trump is inept at finances.

Donald Trump has a lot of money because his dad was rich. [3] If you watch the documentary Trumped, he made a terrible investment in a golf course in Scotland. [4] The weather in Scotland is cold, its not even a good location for a golf course. "That “ordinary” guy was no doubt born into some extraordinary circumstances. He likes to claim that he is a self-made man because his father only loaned him the “small amount” of $1 million. But in the early 1970s, Trump inherited a share of his father’s real estate empire worth tens of millions of dollars. He later took several massive loans from his siblings’ trust funds and his father to pay his debts and shore up his business." [5]Donald Trump is inept at fiances, he got lots and lots of help and had lots of connections. He is the ultimate in privileged. Yet, he still needed to to take massive loans from trust funds and his oil prince friend in Saudri Arabia.All in all it shows that a person who is incredibly privileged, has lots of connections, and loaned lots of money, can be rich despite being inept. Thanks for the debate, was fun. Sources3. http://www.vox.com...4. http://www.imdb.com...5. https://thinkprogress.org...
The Hunger Games games Adaption was better than Divergent

The debate is about the movie adoptions, not the books. I'm pro for THG CLAIM- The Hunger Games was better adapted to screen than Divergent was. Gary Ross (director) did a fabulous job adapting The Hunger Games. Thrilling and superbly acted, The Hunger Games captures the dramatic violence, raw emotion, and ambitious scope of its source novel Ross manages to keep the pacing remarkably swift, given that the games themselves don't start until halfway through the 144-minute running time. It features a functioning creative imagination and lots of honest-to-goodness acting by its star, Jennifer Lawrence, who brings her usual toughness and emotional transparency to the archer-heroine Katniss. It shows what can happen when you allow your government too much control. It is violent, it is horrible, but kids are killing kids in schools to day, and driving kids to suicide, and we aren't doing enough about that either. The Hunger Games Is not only a good movie but important to watch. The Heroines Katniss Everdeen, the hero of The Hunger Games and Lawrence's alter ego, has quickly become one of the most recognizable characters in film and literature. A reluctant hero if ever there was one, Katniss uses the skills that her father taught her to provide food and protect her family, and to become The Girl on Fire who galvanizes a repressed nation. Beatrice "Tris" Prior has no immediate skills, but she is smart, resourceful and, you know, divergent. Unlike Katniss, Tris chooses her path to some extent" even if she doesn't fully realize what that means for her future. The Villains Donald Sutherland's President Snow is a megalomaniac dictator who uses threats and violence to keep an entire nation subservient to him and the ruling class of the Capitol. He pits young people against one another in death matches to remind his citizenship what will happen if they step out of line. In the upcoming The Hunger Games: Mockingjay films, Julianne Moore joins the cast as President Alma Coin, who on the surface appears more concerned for the needs of the people but in reality might be even more unfeeling than Snow. Divergent's Jeanine Matthews (Kate Winslet) is a dangerous genius, who's willing to drug the population and start a war to consolidate her power. Still, she's just trying to control Chicago; Snow and Coin have the whole country under their thumbs. Hunger Games wins easily. Divergent is a fun story but the story, characters and writing in HG is much more effective and believable. The book also doesn't focus on romance like Divergent does. Katniss is a much more realistic heroine (same goes for Pita and Gale as characters) she may not be perfect but she wants to survive over all else. I think this aim is more believable as it is what most people would probably choose when placed in her situation RESOLUTION: The Hunger Games was better film adapted than Divergent was
The Hunger Games games Adaption was better than Divergent

(ONLY THE MOVIE) The Hunger Games was better than Divergent! 1. The characters actually have fun. The Hunger Games is really one long relentless slog through war, misery, poverty, and celibacy. Katniss and Peeta go from their bleak, gray home to the hellscape of the Arena, with a quick stop in the Capitol to feel horrified by and superior to its partying, colorful denizens. When Tris leaves her gray but kind of happy home to run with the wild boys and girls of Dauntless, you can feel her thrill to their endorphin-fueled swagger and unbridled physicality. Sure, things DO go wrong and the training involves knives flying at her head, but it also involves lots of dancing and tattoo-getting,
Conservatism vs Liberalism

Firstly, I would like to say that I DID NOT SAY that decreasing interest rates HURTS the economy i specifically said lowering taxes whie keeping interest rates down is a POSITIVE approach not a negative one. Also I would like to point out that my opponent seems to support higher taxes. This is humorous considering there is a direct correlation between higher taxes and less economic growth. This essentially is exactly what ae see under Obama. If you tax the middle class more/and or regulate and tax businesses more no matter how much money you say we have recieved we have lost more in the long run. When a middle class family is paying over 20% plus in taxes while working a part time job they simply spend less. This AGAIN is EXACTLY what we see under this disastrous president. When the middle class is spending more money, contributing to the economy and working for a higher wage the whole country is happy. An increase tax on people making over $300,000 is obviously needed but a higher tax on people who are the work horses of this country is not. The middle class is crying for help but all the government has done is thrown in the towel while punching them harder. Another point I have is about college, why hasn't Obama done anything to help college students? Why hasn't he implemented a loan forgiveness system where you can pay some of your college debt then become 'freed' from this debt? Why is that democrats are considered the 'progressives' when most of what they stand for isn't? This simple loan forgiveness program would help college students come out of college with a job and a career! Unfortunately the 'progressives' have failed once again. Unfortunately millions are STILL unemployed. There is a solution to this problem. While you have repeatedly said that we should kill the middle class and give more tax breaks to the reach which id what Obama has done, I disagree. While you have stated that the middle class is useless and that higher taxes HELP the economy I disagree. While this president has allowed millions of jobs to go over seas, I believe there's a solution. The solution is not a trade war. The solution is ending China's manipulation of their currency, lowering the business tax rate, lowering the corporate tax and ending corporate inversion. Democrats have long been associated with helping the welathy with allowing corporate inversion to occur. While conservatives have repeatedly been associated with lower taxes, a balanced budget and an economy that works for everyone. Obama has been a weak and ineffective but also a classic example of what you get when you let a first term democratic senator handle the economy. I believe i have shown the differences between Liberalism and Conservatism, now it's up to you, what do you choose.
Conservatism vs Liberalism

This is my first debate, so we'll see how it goes. 1. First of all, I would like to point out that Yeeet2016 (to now be referenced as "Yeet") makes a very vague argument. A. Is s/he saying that conservatism is a better solution to our problems in EVERY possible scenario? If so, this will be a very quick and simple debate for everyone included. If not, Yeet should specify what s/he means in the next round. B. What does Yeet mean when s/he writes that conservatism is a better alternative to our "problems"? I assume that Yeet is talking about our social and economic problems, but I would like to see what s/he exactly means. Again, if Yeet means that conservatism is ALWAYS better than liberalism when solving our "problems", this will be a very quick and concise debate. C. I would like to see more specification from Yeet in the future. As the contender it is not my job to instigate the argument, but (as formerly noted) Yeet has not given much information at all and has only stated vague stances on a vague topic. However, I will do my best to move this debate along. 2. Next, I would like to provide the "background information" that Yeet requested. I see that there is again a sort of vagueness over this request, but I will assume that Yeet requests the basics of my stance on this issue, and not my personal or educational background. I (obviously) am defending liberalism, and more specifically explaining that liberalism TENDS to be more effective concerning social and economic crises. I will be addressing the size of government, and the various programs associated with it; realist theory when concerning international relations including the size of the US military and the resulting impact on taxpayer money and the individual taxpayer; and the evolution of society, including the fact that conservatism has always delayed social changes while liberalism has always advanced society. 3. Finally, I would like to lay out some ground rules. A. Either side may use the maximum amount of characters in their assertion or rebuttal. B. Either side may present facts AND opinions, but they must be backed up with logic and reason. C. Both sides must refrain from personal attacks, but attacks on the view in question are of course accepted.