BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Soup is not a meal. Jerry Seinfeld was supposed to buy Kenny Bania a meal.

My opponent has admitted that Jerry's company was a large component of the "meal". This bit of information is of vital importance. Now, we had no idea what kind of food Bania had in mind when he stated that he wanted a meal with Jerry for the suit. What that leaves us with is this: Jerry's company was a big part of the meal, we must define what is a meal. Dictionary. com defines a meal in this way: –noun 1. the food served and eaten esp. at one of the customary, regular occasions for taking food during the day, as breakfast, lunch, or supper. 2. one of these regular occasions or times for eating food. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Meriam-Webster defines it this way: 1 : an act or the time of eating a portion of food to satisfy appetite 2 : the portion of food eaten at a meal. Both agree that the actual act of eating is a meal. This would mean that Jerry took Bania out to a meal. Both agree that what is eaten (no matter the portion size) is a meal. This would mean that Jerry took Bania out to a meal. The Meriam-Webster entry has the further specification that the portion satisfy appetite. Jerry urged Bania to eat more and he claimed that he could not because he was full from the hotdog he ate earlier. That bears repeating, He was FULL. Obviously the soup satisfied his appetite, so the meal even passes the test of that further specification. In every sense and definition of the word Jerry took Bania out to a meal. Bania was the one trying to pull a technicality by not ordering more food and claiming that Jerry owed him another meal. When Jerry tried to make up for this by buing him soup AND a sandwhich at Monk's, Bania again tried to alter the deal. Jerry did buy Bania a meal, not once but twice. Bania is in the wrong in this argument, Jerry is in the right.
Soup is not a meal. Jerry Seinfeld was supposed to buy Kenny Bania a meal.

Jerry giving Bania a gift card to Mendy's is a great hypothetical example of why Jerry is wrong in this situation. In that example, Jerry could have gotten technical and claimed that he had bought Bania a meal. The reason that Jerry didn't do that is because, even though it was never spelled out in detail for him, it is obvious that Jerry's company is part of the meal. Therefore, handing Bania a gift card would have been a cheap shot at fulfilling his end of the deal. What Jerry did with the soup is no different. He got technical, took advantage of the fact that Bania didn't think he had to spell out the kind of meal he had in mind, and claimed that an appetizer/side dish was a meal. That is a clear cut cheap shot.
Soup is not a meal. Jerry Seinfeld was supposed to buy Kenny Bania a meal.

There are two important questions in this debate that must be answered. One is what Bania and Jerry understood by the term "meal" and the second is what exactly is a meal. The answers to both questions favor Jerry in this debate. It was clear that Bania wanted to enjoy Jerry's company during this meal. If he didn't he simply would have asked for some money for the suit. Or, if he was really jonesing for swordfish at Mendy's, he could have asked for some money or a gift card for the meal. It is clear that Bania wanted to enjoy Jerry's company, that was part of the meal. Now, a meal is food consumed, soup is food comsumed, therefore soup is a meal. Soup can be very filling. If you define a meal as something that sates your appetite then the soup that Bania ate was a meal, because by his own admission he couldn't order anything else because of the hotdog he ate earlier. So, the soup obviously sated whatever appetite he had before going to Mendy's. Also, Elaine's opinion doesn't matter. In a debate the opinions of non-experts that are not participating in the debate is meaningless. Unless you can show that Elaine was an expert on what constitutes a meal than that argument won't fly. I will admit though, Bania did look huge after all that weightlifting.
Soup is not a meal. Jerry Seinfeld was supposed to buy Kenny Bania a meal.

Jerry is flattering himself if he thinks that Bania was so desperate to hang out with him that he would manipulate him into it. Regardless of what Jerry thought of his act, Bania was a successful comedian. He didn't need Jerry's friendship. He thought that giving a fellow comedian a suit that he had grown out of from getting huge lifting weights would be a nice gesture and, to call it even, they could enjoy a meal together. It's morally wrong and eccentric to expect Bania to allow Jerry to cheap shot him with technicalities. When Bania suggested Jerry buying him a meal in exchange for the suit he obviously suggested it with something like a swordfish at Mendys in mind and Jerry knew it. Even Elaine told Jerry that she didn't agree with him.
Soup is not a meal. Jerry Seinfeld was supposed to buy Kenny Bania a meal.

In a perfect world your argument makes complete sense but Kenny Bania did not exist in a vaccum. As was clear from his actions and Jerry's reactions to them, Kenny was an annoyance to Jerry. Chiefly, because Bania wanted to hang out with Jerry all the time. Jerry also saw him as a "hack" comedian that was facinated by "things that disolve in milk." I would argue that Bania was being more manipulative than his personality would have you believe. He gave the suit to Jerry because he wanted Jerry's company under the guise of a meal. Jerry probably understood this and agreed to one "meal" with Bania. Both of them should have understood the subtext of the request: "I give you this suit and you hang out with me once." It was when Bania tried to alter the deal by insisting on another "meal" when Jerry cried foul, and rightly so. Further, Jerry tried to rememdy the situation by eating with Bania at Monk's, the coffee shop, where he ordered soup AND a sandwhich. However, Bania again tried to change the deal by saying that Jerry had to take him to a nice restaurant like Mendy's. This tells me that Bania didn't care about just any "meal" because no one can argue that soup and a sandwhich is a meal. If Bania was so concerned about the monetary cost of the meal then why didn't he simply ask Jerry to pay him something for the suit? The reason is that his goal all along was to try to drag Jerry into being his friend and using the suit to do so. That being the case it is clear that Kenny is in the wrong in this situation because he gave Jerry the suit under false pretenses.
We should introduce a flat tax.

Introducing a flat tax would not solve this problem. The IRS has released data on the 400 highest earning Americans, they pay 18% of what they earn in taxes(1). A flat tax would be even lower since a high flat tax would impoverish the poor. This is the argument for progressive taxation. A rich person wouldn't even notice an extra $500 in their bank account, while for the poor it could be the difference between a decent life and poverty. Your first $10,000 is far more important than your last, for it is the money that can provide you with the essentials in life. That is why the first $9225 is only taxed at 10%, while your money after that is taxed more because it is based on wants rather than needs. It is also a mark of giving back to society, what it gave you: the opportunities in life to succeed. A flat tax has to be low so even if all loopholes came to an end, the rich would still be contributing less. (1) http://blogs.wsj.com...
Should schools have dress codes

I see where you are coming from saying that it is human nature, but you know what else was human nature before we evolved? picking bugs out of each others hair and eating them. We can evolve and change. It's about dignity? so its not okay for a girl to wear a skirt that isn't past her fingertips but it is ok for a guys to have no shirt on? A guy can wear a shirt with sexual references, but the bra strap, oh no the horror.
Should schools have dress codes

I think the school dress code is pretty fair. It's not just about boys not controlling themselves. It's about modesty and social dignity. Why would you go to school in a bikini? The point of going to school is to learn and get an education not expose your skin. Schools should be a place that teach our future generation to respect women not objectify them. Making boys control their urges sounds ideal but not realistic. It's not something you can change. It's natural human nature. You could use your same argument to allow public nudity but we know it's wrong. As civilized human beings, we have some social dos and don'ts. In a dignified, respected setting as a school, there needs to be a proper dress code.
Should schools have dress codes

Have you ever once thought that dress code was unfair and sexist well I have. Why do girls have to cover up so much? So we don't distract boys? Well by enforcing dress code we are distracting the girls by making them go change during class. You may say it is because boys can't control themselves but if teen lesbians don't get "distracted" by girls in short shorts then boys shouldn't either. Teach boys to control themselves not teach girls they need to cover up. I'm not trying to offend anyone I just want a clean debate
GOD or GODS? THE BIBLE SAYS...GODS.

In Exodus 3:14 God tell Moses “I am that I am”. [1] The confusion of there being more than one god comes from a misunderstanding of the trinity. The word trinity does not appear in the Bible but the concept is certainly there. Jesus said I and the father are one. This suggests that Jesus is God but it also suggests that he is not a different God than the Father. [2] In Genesis god says Let us go and make man in our own image. This plural does not suggest multiple gods but multiple persons of the same god. He also uses the same plural in regard to the Tower of Babel. [3] [4] During the Baptism of Christ we see the best example of the trinity all three person together. [5] The first Commandment is thou shalt have no other gods before me. This shows that he is the only God and if they had worshiped another god it would have angered him. [6] Ephesians says One Lord, one faith, one baptism. You can’t get much clearer than that, that there is only one God. [7] I look forward to hearing my opponent’s argument on the subject. 1 . http://www.biblegateway.com... 2 . http://www.biblegateway.com... 3 . http://www.biblegateway.com... 4 . http://www.biblegateway.com... 5 . http://www.biblegateway.com... 6 . http://www.biblegateway.com...7 . http://www.biblegateway.com...;
Creation & NOT Theory of Evolution

===Counters===The Missing Link.Pro's main point stems from a simple (yet popular) misunderstanding of what evolution actually claims. A "missing link" as the standard of evidence for the validity of evolution is an untenable position. Mostly because even if some "missing link" were discovered, it would merely create two more. For instance, say a link was discovered between modern day humans and chimps. Let's call this link Australopithecus[1]. Once this is established, it lends itself to the need for a further "missing link" between that and humanity as well as a link between that and the nearest relative preceding it. The entire methodology itself is flawed. Further, even under its own standards, the objection fails since several early hominid species have been discovered in the past.[2]Pro seems to recognize this when he claims that "no amount of time & fossils will be able to prove that MAN evolved from another species other than MAN." So he would appear to contradict himself in demanding such evidence while simultaneously saying it's no use. Actually, it can lend credence to the theory if we track the specific major evolutionary changes as scientists have actually done (refer to source 2). The problem lies in thinking that one single piece of evidence missing can break the entire theory. Science doesn't operate this way. Perhaps in the negative sense it does (i.e., contrary evidence can do so) but positively (i.e., missing) no. Science operates holistically; the best explanation is always preferred. And evolution appears to foster this standard near perfectly.Burden of Proof.Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof for this debate. Besides only bringing a single argument against evolution (one that relied on a gross misinterpretation of evolution and basic scientific methodology), Pro offered no evidence in support of the claim that (a) God exists, (b) God created humanity specially as opposed to simply allowing humanity to form as theistic evolutionists purport[3], and (c) that this creator was indeed the God described in the Christian Bible (as opposed to the Muslim, deist, pagan God(s). ===Sources===[1] http://www.columbia.edu...[2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...[3] http://www.discovery.org...
Creation & NOT Theory of Evolution

I accept. I'll post some definitions before we begin so as to minimize confusion in the coming debate.===Definitions===There are many different types of creationism. I'm not sure which form Pro will be advocating, and will adjust my arguments/counters to reflect whichever form he chooses. For convenience, (since I have a feeling Pro will opt to defend YEC) Young-earth creationism is the view that God created the world along with all life in more or less its present form less than 10,000 years ago.[1] I choose to define creationism as opposed to intelligent design here due to Pro's mention of the Christian Bible rather than the ambiguous "designer" of ID proponents.Evolution refers to "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations."[2] More specifically, modern evolutionary theory posits the existence of speciation whereby "new genetically distinct species evolve usually as a result of genetic isolation from the main population."[3] Evolutionary theory therefore includes not just small changes and adaptations, but the evolution of new species from a common ancestor.===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...[3] http://www.biology-online.org...
Call of Duty Is Dying

Hello, ladies and gentlemen, and triggered SJWs that are mad that I didn't say their gender. I am here to bring the argument into light that the first-person shooter franchise Call of Duty is dying. Having been around since 2001, it has brought joy to many millions of people. But after a certain time (cough cough, 16 years, cough cough) it loses its 'umph'. It was actually still doing pretty well after 12 years until Sledgehammer Games' first ever installment of the franchise, 'Advanced Warfare,' was released. It introduced two new aspects, 'exo' jumps and supply drops. If you don't know what those two things are then GTFO grandpa. Anyways, those two things made AW the worst game in the franchise, and that's not just my opinion, it's a widespread belief. Before I use up all my material, I'm giving the floor over to my adversary now. Good luck.
Feminism

You claim that feminism encourages false rape accusations and stereotyping men as bad. Um... No, that's not what feminism is at all. Feminism is the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men[1]". Now, you admit that this is something you are for, so I guess you have problems with how feminists go about this? Really, I think your entire argument stems from a complete misunderstanding of the movement.So, what is feminism? This is a difficult question because, much like religion, feminism is different for each feminist. The mission statement of the movement is equal rights between the sexes, which you agree is good. By this definition, you are a feminist. If you could indicate how you aren't a feminist, that'd be appreciated. Maybe you disagree that there is a systematic discrimination against women, the patriarchy.Is there a patriarchy? Well, as it commonly seems to be the case, I must define "the patriarchy". Basically, it means a system where men are valued over women[2]. This can be shown in the wage gap[3], rape culture[4] (though men can be victims of rape, rape culture usually targets women), and gender roles[5]. Rebuttals: What you are saying here is very dangerous. Stating that feminism promotes false rape accusations is an example of rape culture. 60% of victims report abuse, and 97% of abusers will not see jail[6]. Only 1.5-8% of rape reports are fake[7], so Puh-LEASE do not try and say that considerable amount of rape reports are fake and that we should cast doubt on those few that come forward. If we are going of the definition of feminism I stated earlier, then feminists aren't trying to put men as stereotypically bad. We are trying to make men and women equal. If you think that trying to remove the bias towards men is trying to say they are bad, then I am going to have to ask you go to timeout because that idea is downright childish.In the end there you say something about "calling the police about something ridiculous is obscure". I think you mean absurd, but if you didn't then I'm not sure what that would mean. If it is obscure, then false rape accusations don't happen often and thus shouldn't be a problem. If you meant absurd, then I would agree that false rape accusations are deplorable, but again I would say that "false rape reports" is not a tenant of feminism nor is it a likely to occur.
The Science of Rights

I watched the video and found it to be one of the stupidist things I've ever seen in my life. I will gladly accept this debate, and will argue that there is a panoply of better ways to spend seven minutes than watching that video. I do so as a service and a warning to others. I will also argue specifically that this compilation of Looney Tunes is a much more entertaining video alternative:Please proceed to state your case.
The Science of Rights

Please, present your “preliminary research. ” As for the production value, one could find flaws in any video presentation, style, format, etc. It's YouTube, not MGM. On second thought, not much quality is coming out of Hollywood these days. Perhaps, the author Takac is poor and can't afford a literary agent to sponsor his work for a well-known publisher (“self-publish”) or his video production is home brew. In any event, I think the 7+ minute presentation gives a good overview of the two books and presents the fact our Unalienable Rights are part of the physical laws of nature as oppose to the metaphysics of natural law (Hobbes, Locke, etc. ). Con should not be consume with video cosmetics, but let's focus on the content. Relative to Unalienable Rights pertaining to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” correspond to the three primitives found in all living systems down to the single cell level. To exemplify, once an organism comes to (1) life, it has the (2) liberty to (3) pursue survival; otherwise, there is no life. Since we have life, the underlying pursuit of survival is the notion that most accomplished objectives result in some form of chemical/electrical positive-feedback - or happiness for humans - as experienced by all living things. In addition, liberty and pursuit represents movement or flow of life corresponding to the symmetry found in the physical constructal law. The constructal law, governs evolution in biology, physics, technology, social organization from the freedom of flow generating configuration interacting with the laws of nature through time - whether animate or inanimate. It is true the constructal law is new (1996) and under peer-review. It took the scientific community much longer to agree on Einstein's work. This is a normal phase in science. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...As for Wilson's quote: . http://books.google.com.... “No doubt a great deal of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle. ”Wilson did not elaborate on what he meant by “fundamental principle. ” But he went on to say:“Government is a part of life, and, with life, it must change, alike in its objects and in its practices; only this principle must remain unaltered, - this principle of liberty, that there must be the freest right and opportunity of adjustment. Political liberty consists in the best practicable adjustment between the power of the government and the privilege of the individual; and the freedom to alter the adjustment is as important as the adjustment itself for the case and progress of affairs and the contentment of the citizen. ”According to Wilson it's “Political liberty” manifesting in defining the “privilege of the individual,” a clear implication supporting his “nonsense” position over the Unalienable Rights of the individual.
Melbourne should be the capital of Australia

The opposition has forfeited the last two rounds of debate. Hopefully they will come back for the final round to conclude this debate. In case they do not, here is a summary of my major points within this debate. - The two main candidates for Australia's capital are the status quo of Canberra and the city of Melbourne. As the negative, I firmly believe that Canberra is much better equip to be the capital than Melbourne. - It would take too much effort to move the capital for such little benefits. - Canberra is not a huge tourist destination which makes it more practical for political purposes. Even so, it spreads out the tourist destinations within our country which boost our economy. - Canberra also acts as a link between the two major cities of Sydney and Melbourne - The city of Canberra is always expanding and developing. It has vast amounts of land to do this in whereas Melbourne (a relatively old city) does not - Potential to become an iconic world power location lies in Canberra - Canberra is a sustainable city -Canberra meets all the attributes of a great city mentioned in the 2nd citation of my last argument. Thank you.
Melbourne should be the capital of Australia

Around 100 years ago, a hasty compromise between rivals Sydney and Melbourne declared Canberra as the capital of Australia. Today, Sydney is a bustling international city and is sometimes referred to as the capital by international tourists. However, should Melbourne have been appointed capital in the first place and should it be reverted to the position of the Australian capital today. As the negative speaker, I disagree firmly with these points and believe that the capital of Australia should stay as it is today. The capital of a nation needs to have space for embassies, lodgings for parliamentarians and obviously a parliament house itself. Melbourne and Canberra seem like the only cities with enough space to accommodate these facilities and so should be the main cities brought up within this debate. My main reason in favour of Canberra is that the city is safer and more practical as a capital rather than Melbourne. Due to its large population and multicultural society, Melbourne has an increased chance of a terrorist attack than that of Canberra. By moving parliamentarians to a new capital in Melbourne, we are further baiting terrorist motives within our nation. The capital of Australia should remain in Canberra. Thank you.
NASA should focus more on unmanned space exploration than manned space exploration

As this is the last round, and most if not all of the debaters are already thinking tl;dr, I will be brief here. Instead of reviewing the entire round as my opponent has done, I want to highlight one key issue as to why the vote must go Con. Simply put, I want to extend across one of my prior arguments as voting issues. At the end of it all you must vote for the Con, as if we do not put effort into manned space exploration, we will not get better at it. My opponent never effectively covers this argument, and furthermore he never denies that we would continue to improve our unmanned space exploration technology if we put less focus on it than on manned space exploration. I urge a Con vote.