BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ms. Harman's Equality Bill is a bad idea

My opponent has chosen as his sole reference a notoriously scurrilous source – the extreme right-wing Daily Telegraph, the media source that makes Fox News look like the North Korean Central News Agency! The Telegraph has an agenda to distort the news to satisfy their political masters in the Conservative Party, no matter whether or not their coverage of events is fair or honest. Indeed, their reputation for honesty is not a good one. The former proprietor of the Telegraph, and former Conservative Party peer, the disgraced Lord Black, is a convicted criminal currently serving a six and a half year jail sentence for fraud. Instead of the squalid piece of Tory propaganda my opponent referred to, please allow me to offer you an independent and impartial analysis of Harriet Harman's Equality Bill: http://news.bbc.co.uk... You see, Ms Harman isn't saying a woman who works 40% fewer hours than a man should, nevertheless, receive the same pay at the end of the week, not that nor anything like that. The fact is that women, particularly in the City, suffer from indirect sexual discrimination. Much networking is done and many deals are struck outside office hours, when male colleagues and business associates play golf or go what the City boys call "whoring" (that is to say, visit lap-dancing clubs). A female investment banker or commodity trader with young children at home is unlikely to be invited to participate in such activities, and is unlikely to accept the invitation even if she was! Because of this, she will miss out on important deals and will be perceived as being outside the loop. Furthermore, if she complains about not getting promotion or the same bonus as her male colleagues she will be viewed as a troublemaker. That is why Ms Harman has focused on this sector of industry in particular, asking the City to voluntarily address the problem of a 42% gender pay gap. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk... The right-wing press are intent on spreading lies and misinformation. The aim of the wealthy media barons is to persuade the voters to elect a Conservative government who will then repay the newspaper proprietors for their support with generous tax cuts for the rich. However, the Conservative-supporting press can only fool weak-minded people who are too naive to look beyond the sectionalist headlines. That's why I am confident they won't fool the astute and knowledgeable debate.org voters.
Pick your own devil's advocate.

I'm very much looking forward to this debate :D I will be taking Resolution #1. Barack Obama, overall, has been an effective president. So, for definitions: Effective: [1] 1a : producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect Seems to be the only relevant definition. For further clarity, let's also get these: Decided: [2] 1. unquestionable 2. free from doubt or wavering Decisive: [3] 1. having the power or quality of deciding 2. resolute, determined 3. unmistakable, unquestionable Desire: [4] 1. to long or hope for : exhibit or feel desire for 2. to express a wish for : request And finally, overall: [5] The most relevant definitions seem to be 3. a : in view of all the circumstances or conditions b : as a whole : generally c : with everyone or everything taken into account With these definitions in mind, it seems an expanded version of the resolution might be this: Taking all things relating to his presidency into consideration, Barack Obama has decisively and unquestionably produced effects in the USA that are in line with his stated desires, his hopes and wishes. And I will be arguing the case that the above statement is false :) Any preference on structure? If so, I'll go with whatever you decide. If not, I propose R2 for primary arguments, R3 for rebuttals, and R4 for conclusions, and no new arguments in R4. Good luck to my opponent! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Pick your own devil's advocate.

In a celebration of our masquerade event, I am going to devil's advocate any one of the below resolutions. The twist is, the resolution my opponent picks must also be against his or her beliefs. To be clear, I will be Pro on all of the resolutions, meaning that the one he or she picks must be one that he/she agrees with (since my opponent will be Con). Don't accept if you can't handle spitting in the face of all your deeply-held principles :D!Choose one:1. Barack Obama, overall, has been an effective president.2. The United States should terminate all foreign aid (including military intervention).3. All forms of torture should be illegal in the United States.4. Welfare is generally effective.5. The border fence between the U.S. and Mexico should not be built.6. The deregulated free market is bad for society.Rules(1) My opponent must be devil's advocating. Of course, we do not know what is in someone's heart of hearts, but if evidence can be found that my opponent believes otherwise he/she will be disqualified.(2) No trolling, lawyering, semantics, etc.(3) My opponent may provide (reasonable) definitions in the first round, and has the option of simply accepting or presenting his/her arguments first.Join the MasqueradeHelp celebrate the masquerade by simply adopting any position, ideology, or beliefs you disagree with, making debates about them, or editing your profile to match them. "Imagine a hardcore Christian pretending to be an obnoxious atheist, arguing with a hardcore atheist who is pretending to be a Bible-thumper!"The thread: [http://www.debate.org...]
Pick your own devil's advocate.

"The original idea for healthcare involved quite a few stipulations, including the idea of a public exchange and what amounted to a government run insurance plan, which could not refuse care, and which would pay for itself with its own premiums and not tax dollars, thus setting the stage to prevent price gouging and ensure fair prices in a competitive environment. "While a public exchange was considered, it was not at all critically important to the success of Obama's healthcare. The idea was dropped in 2009 and was dismissed as unimportant by Obama himself. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] "The "obamacare" that finally got put into position is a ripped apart, tangled mess of remains of the original system. "This is a bare assertion; where is Con's evidence? "The bickering has only grown worse, to the point that several republicans have made it their primary political objective to make Obama a failure, and most are fiercely opposed to him, granting no compromise. "Yet Obama managed to provide national healthcare in the face of all this opposition. This proves more than ever that he is indeed effective as a President. She fails to provide details here, too. "Even if it's not his fault, it's still a failure. Take the most skilled archer in all the world, hog tie him, and put a bow in his hands. He is suddenly not an effective archer, no matter his skill or training. Likewise, Obama has practically been hog-tied by his political opponents, and no matter how good his intentions or skill, he has been rendered ineffective. "Bare assertion fallacy. How has has he been hog-tied and how as this affected his performance? Con has also not made any argument against his performance saving the economy or his foreign policy, and I would recommend that you try and source all of your claims. Alright, guess this was shorter than I had assumed it would be. Good luck to my opponent.
Pick your own devil's advocate.

The format you gave is how it works in every debate. Making brand new arguments in the final round is frowned upon on this website.1. Obama saved the economy from total collapse. A common critism of Obama's policies comes from the massive unemployment, which Obama claimed would be kept below 8%. However, this objection ignores the fact that the government and the public underestimated the effects of the economic crisis. A study from Princetone and Moody's estimates that unemployment could have spiked to over 16.5% and created a nightmare depression scenario. Another important factor in recovery is the pace of the spending. By the start of 2009 stimulus spending had not even begun, yet over the next few months it was over $100 billion. Such abrupt surges were part of the reason the recession ended quickly. [1. . http://www.economy.com...]Another common attack is that the government intervention is a new and unprecented policy. He has been labeled a socialist and has been repeatedly blamed for the economy. However, looking at the past, the government has often directly interfered, such as giving New York City a large loan during the economic stagnation of the 70's to avoid bankruptcy [2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...], the bailout in the response to the savings and loan crisis a few years later [3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...], and in 1979 giving Chrysler $1.5 billion to keep the company afloat. [4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...] Government intervention has been the rule rather than the exception.2. Obama brought about health care reform. In less than a decade, 95 percent of Americans will have health care. Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to revoke coverage for preexisting conditions and new protections are available to protect the people's right to health care. Reform would also likely increase labor supply by allowing more people to get jobs. [5. . http://www.whitehouse.gov...]. A study using CBO data by the Department of Health and Human Services found that it would save a middle class family $2,300 when purchasing insurance. [6. . http://www.healthcare.gov...].Insurance reform would also boost the economy, since half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. [7. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...]3. His foreign policies. When the Obama Administration took office, almost 180,000 U. S. soldiers were still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama ended the massively expensive wars and responsibly brought our troops home. He supported a coalition in Libya to end Gaddafi's regime and saved thousands from dying, and promoted Israel's security while supporting a Palestinian country. [8. . http://www.whitehouse.gov...].I apologize for not doing a more in-depth analysis; I will try to present more information in the subsequent rounds.
I am likely god

Con doesn't address sh1t. I get aked this Q by ppl all the time. They want me to do something amazing like lift up a car with my boosack or guess their name (Im god not a me-damn magician). I refuse to do such party tricks."Lets do a test, if you are God, tell me my middle name, you must know this, because you are all-powerful. "Whatever I say your middle name is it therefore is. Im all powerful and therefore can change your middle name.If I say your middle initial is J it therefore IS. Therefore its useless to ask me to do such absurd party tricks like mental divination or some crap.Next test, if you are powerful. Destory 30 monuments, it will be in the news, i will watch.Im all loving, meaning I cannot. Im all powerful but that power must not contradict my nature (all loving) dont think Im all loving? Ask the girls at the brothel *high five*Show all of these answers, and i'll admit that you are god. :D Con doesnt know how to format his sh1t properly but im god and I know its a calculas problem. I refuse to do such party tricks because 1. Non-god beings can do this and 2. Im god and therefore any answer I give will be correct. It will not make you believe I could change mathematics to make the answer be 7, you would think its wrong cuz your believing in the past math. There is still no proof Im not god!!!!!!
I am likely god

My Argue. 1: I exist 2: I am God C: God exists (and Im him) Proof 1: My greatness. By neccectation any being which is Maximally great must by definitio be God. God is a neccecary maximally great being. Being maximally great entinites you to Godhood because that means your omnipotent omniscient and all that sh1t. Proof Im maximally great. 1: My supirior intellect. My intelligence is demonstrated to be 100% smarter than 100% of people everywhere. Observe http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... I am a visionary a revolutionaryer that revolutionizes thought. 2: Can you concive of me being greater? Nope! Because I already define myself as maximally great. Proof 2: Memories I have distinct memories of me being god, creating the earth, having the sex with mary (damn good bros *High five) that birthed my beutiful son (who is me). I remember clearly telling Glucus to make star wars. Proof 3: No evidence for the negation Wheer is the proof I am not god? I couldn’t prove I wasnt god at all! If I was God I wouldn’t be able to prove I wasnt either. I then realized I was GOD. Proof 4: I am omnibelvelent I kiss babies, I pat people on the back. I give money to the poor. I have never done evil not once. Proof 5: Knowledge You cannot base your knowledge off anything else other than me! Try to justifiy your reasoning you gots to use yo own reasoning. Fallacy alert. You couldn’t know anything without me. Proof 6: Faith Have faith that Im God bro. Is it unjustified? No bros. If you have faith no justification is necccary. If you dont, you dont know the feels I bring you. Proof 7: miracles There are accounts of me doing mircales such as healing the sick, healing the blind, curing the autistic, impregnating the impregnatable, seducing the uunseducable. If this aint proof what is? Proof 8: Probability If these 7 arguments have only a 15% chance of being true (granted a proiri) then you multiply 15% by 7 you get a 105% chance Im god (Not just a garentee but a super garentee) Conclusion I AM THE HOLY OF HOLYS
warhammer 40k - the most morrally okay/good of the main army factions.

I'll let my opponent present his case in R3.The Imperium are the only morally correct faction because their morality is purely based on things which can be scientifically verified. The Tau's greater good for example is a philosophy that cannot be said to be right or wrong because it can't be verified. It's a baseless belief that is upheld by their leadership. The humans on the other hand don't lie about their morals or beat around the bush. The God Emperor is the diety of humanity and what is right depends on whatever furthers the interest of humanity. It sounds cold, however this is what morality is when you strip away all the nonsensical philosophical jargon -a method to improve the quality of life. Humanity has recognised that we need no fancy and elaborate philosophies to dictate to us what morality is. The imperial cult jumps straight to the point and says that what is right is whatever furthers our interest. Morality is inherently subjective, and races that pretend it isn't in order to feel good simply delude themselves. The imperial cult is a moral construct that skips all these senseless chains and is entirely based upon that which exists -the real world. A pragmatic philosophy that doesn't concern itself with meta-ideas and the like is a philosophy that has the most application to real life. In terms of the Tau's 'greater good,' what is the greater good? nobody knows, so the etherals are the ones who instruct the people on what the greater good is and thereby perpetuate the suppressed society that they are all bound to.In other words, all empires are like the Imperium, however the imperium is the only empire to recognise that we don't require excuses that cover up the deeds we do, therefore we simply declare it openly without shame:Burn the HereticKill the MutantPurge the Unclean
X-men (con) vs Avengers (Pro) movie version

We have cyclops who if he opens his eyes can release lot of energy. We have professor x who can pretty much control every avenger with a single thought. We have phoenix who can obliterate them as well. Not to mention the powerful sidekicks Nightcrawler (teleporter), colossus fist (steel), pyro and iceman. We also have storm. Captain america is barely a soldier with a shield, hawkeye an archer supported with tech and black widow the standard secret agent. They lack the skill to beat the mutants. Hulk can easily be mind controlled in beast mode, and thor's armor is made of metal that can be magnetized. Same goes for Iron man. Deadpool is the best assassin and has regen powers like wolverine.
X-men (con) vs Avengers (Pro) movie version

Deadpool is counted as an x-man as there was colossus fist in his movie, and anyways I mentioned it in round 1 of the debate. Black widow can't even defeat one of the x-men. Professor X can control anyone using cerebro, that includes your whole team. Or he could cause their minds to collapse and die. Phoenix can burn down pretty much everyone. Pyro can easily burn up Black Widow, Hawkeye and Captain America. Magneto and Phoenix have telekinesis, which they can use to throw hulk upon the entire team. Plus, cyclops can open his eyes for a long time to obliterate everyone. Nightcrawler can easily exhaust Black Panther's energies by dodging using teleport. Mystique can become Nick Fury and order the Avengers to retreat, which will make them exposed to attack. X-men can easily beat Avengers.
Employers should be made to hire the most experienced, qualified person.

The fact is you expect there to be a group of people employed by government to judge whether or not people are employed fairly. Who will pay all the judges? You sir are very naive. Government employees are paid by the loot they collect from the taxpayers, are they not? HOW WILL THIS BRILLIANT IDEA BE PAID FOR? Government employees love to live high on the hog and to pretend otherwise is complete idiocy. Where do they get that pay? It is mostly confiscated from the free people, not the dependents, or the pseudo Robbin Hoods of parliament or any other agency. Soft tyranny sounds pretty OK with you eh?
Employers should be made to hire the most experienced, qualified person.

My opponent has failed to make a case for his side of the debate (Con / Against the idea). As such, Con forfeits the chance to do so, as this round is for rebuttals only, and the final round for conclusions. In response to my case, my opponent states only one objection, despite my providing examples of others in my original argument. My opponent states that in order for my idea to be successfully implemented, Government officials would be required, who are experts in every field, in order to ensure that employers hired the best candidates. My opponant goes on to state that this would cost too much. In my country (UK) unemployment is generally handled by Jobcentres. There is no reason why Jobcentres could not implement a new 'job matching' system, whereby a computerised system automatically matches jobs to suitable applicants, on a first come first served basis (i.e. the job goes to the most qualified person on the list at that time). This would actually SAVE money, as less Government staff would be required to work in Jobcentres / Unemployment services generally. It would also ensure a more efficient distribution of jobs, and allow also for some degree of predictability regarding when an unemployed person could expect to find a job. This is just one way in which the idea could easily be implemented and would, contrary to Con's objection, save both time and money. As no other objections have been proposed by Con, I will rest my case here for now.
Employers should be made to hire the most experienced, qualified person.

The bottom line with your methodology is the that we would need an equal amount of government employees that are experts in the fields that meet your requirements for judgement. You believe that the government really has the potential to be in charge of judging hiring qualifications? You do pay taxes right? What would it cost to employ government agents in every field to judge employment qualifications? Certainly it would be more then we could afford.
World War I was far more brutal than World War II

These are the points I'm going to make about World War I. 1. History-How it started 2. What type of fighting tools they used. 3. New machinery came out that made it an unfair play. (Cost many lives) So my first point; World War I started over a little issue. When the "Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo, Bosnia. " [1] This started the war that was never forgotten and that has changed the way we live and fight for centuries. This action led to threatening of other countries, latter it was announced that there is going to be World War I. My second point; Now, World War I had very few things they had to fight with. They had very little to protect themselves, unlike World War II. So I'm going to list the things they used for fighting and what they used to defend themselves. 1. This magnificent gas created during this war. It was called mustard gas. This was a very poisonous gas that killed everybody in trenches, It took 12 hours to take effect, but after it did it was sometimes a slow painful death. (Latter was outlawed by Syria) You suffocate. Many died from this weapon used by the Germans. 2. They used a bolt action rifle that can hold 15 rounds. (made in Britain) 3. Machine guns, they had to have 4-6 people operating them in the trenches. (Fire power 100 guns) 4. Zeppelin, these were used as aircraft carriers, (carried bombs) they soon were abandoned because they were easy to shoot out of the sky. 5. Planes, were first introduced as spy planes and carriers, but soon were made as fighter planes. 6. Torpedoes, were used by German subs to sink ships. This was many of the things they used. Unlike World War II, which had many more advanced weapons and better protection from the attacks. Now, lets look at what the people used to defend themselves. 1. In World War I the only thing they had to defend themselves were trenches, they had to dig all day to stay safe and away from the enemy line. Since the trenches were in the ground, whenever the machines fired at the trenches it blew out everybody in that hit area out of the trenches, and killed every single person in there. World War II had better protection and fighting styles. My third point; New machinery that was introduce in World War I that changed the way of fighting. The tanks were introduced in World War I. Now I will say right now, these tanks are not like the tanks we have now, they were able to be blown up by machine guns. So in other words they were not built as well. This changed the whole rules of the game. Now there was a disadvantage. A machine against people who had no protection, they might as well have come out of the trenches with a sign on them saying "Shoot me I'm an open target". The tanks were a nightmare to the soldiers, millions were killed in World War I. These are my points in this round. Sources: . http://www.historyonthenet.com... [1] . http://www.history.com... This [1], means that in the beginning I used out of text from that website.