BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MARS creates Better Chocolate Than Hershey.

I accept your challenge! Even though it is purely opinion which chocolate brand you prefer. Since it was not specified, I guess I will give some definition's: MARS: Mars, Inc. is an American global manufacturer of confectionery, pet food, and other food products with US$30 billion in annual sales in 2012, and is ranked as the 3rd largest privately held company in the United States (For more info http://en.wikipedia.org...) Hershey: The Hershey Company, is the largest chocolate manufacturer in North America. Hershey's products are sold in about sixty countries worldwide (For more info http://en.wikipedia.org...) To make this debate easier, I am assuming that you mean the MARS Chocolate Bar (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and The Hershey Bar (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I am looking forward to your arguments!
Free trade should be valued above protectionism

==AC (my case)=== V: Human Prosperity He says that if there are no taxes, then the economy is doomed to devolve. --> First, free trade and taxes arent mutually exclusive. The U.S. comparatively uses free trade an yet we have taxes. Free trade is referring to flow of goods and capital between nations. Taxing deals with the power of the government intake capital like income and capitals gains. --> If he is referring to trade barriers with levied taxes, this brings in minimal revenue compared to other forms of taxes and a lot of nations lack trade barriers using taxes and their economies are booming, like Taiwan. VC: MCGE He says that we need peace free trade. --> He doesnt say how protectionism promulgates peace and/or how free trade hinders peace C1: Environment He says I give no dates or sources --> I gave the author and the article where it was cited, if he is that concerned about fabrication he can look them up He then says I give no warrant for the food decline argument from the Dixon evidence. --> What Dixon is saying is that environmental collapse destroys natural resources, like farmland, which results in resource wars. Empirical proof can be seen in destruction of African land. The analysis however is that groups of people, due to scarcity, will use violence to gain the resource they need for survival He then says to the Diner evidence that I give no proof. --> The proof is in the evidence itself. Environmental collapse results in destruction of elements needed for survival. =NC= V: Sovereignty He says he provided a resolutional link because sovereignty promotes protectionism. --> This is not true on the fact that maintaining sovereignty and trade policy are two separate issues. Sovereignty is a philosophical principle discussing the power of the state. Free trade and protectionism is two types of trade policy. No direc link exists. He says I dont give proof of my turn --> The proof is that if we philosophically justify sovereignty as the utmost value to evaluate, then nothing can come before that. Thus, the turn argues that state and national interest would always supersede human interest, e.g. the holocaust. c1: Human Rights He says he gives tons of warrants. --> I argued that in his analysis he doesnt say how promotion of protectionist measures would help the issue in China. He ignores the status quo framework of China, namely a communist-authoritarian regime,and then says if they use protectionism then people will gain freedoms. There is no link here. --> He drops the link turn I made in my last speech. Extend it and it stands for the round. FREE TRADE SOLVES CHINESE OPPRESSION (refer to last speech) C2: Alternatives He says I offer no evidence --> He drops the Historical Japanese Analysis. Thus, his contention lacks any concrete example --> He drops the link turn again. FREE TRADE SOLVES THE ECONOMY. =General= 1. He ignores all the substantive parts of the evidence in the AC. As the evidence indicates, Free Trade Solves Enviornmental Destruction. 2. His case has been mitigated by analytical kicks and empirical turns. .
Free trade should be valued above protectionism

I have a tournament this friday and this is helping me prepare. Now to get down to business. I will attack my opponents case then uphold mine. My opponents value was human prosperity. Free trade does not benefit man. If there are no taxes, then the economy is doomed to devolve. His criterion was Maximizing Comparatively Good Ends. human prosperity is best acheived when there is peace, not free trade. Contention 1- My opponent states no given date for this quote, so therefore his contention could be made up as there is no source, therefore his contention crumbles Contention 2- "A sharp decline in food crop production and grazing land could lead to conflict between nomadic tribes and sedentary farmers" My opponent shows no proof for this statement. Contention 3- Once again, my opponent shows no real proof. Therefore,his case must crumble. I will now uphold my case: Value- My opponent states that I provide no resolutional link. As a matter of fact, I did. While I did not directly state it, The reader can come to the conclusion that sovereignty helps state that protectionism should be valued above free trade. My opponent also states no poof that "Valuing sovereignty is bad because it promotes a national interest over a human interest" Criterion- my opponent did not attack my criterion, so therefore it stands Contention 1: I provide warrants in my case. I show all kinds of examples in my contention and throughout my case. ' Contention 2: My opponent states no evidence. My opponents case and his attacks on my case lack evidence. Therefore, you have no other reason but to vote con. Thank you
The Philadelphia Eagles should NOT draft WR DeSean Jackson

< > I don't understand what u mean by your round 2 argument. Are you arguing with yourself when u say "they should not draft him, no they should draft him?" or are you saying the Eagles shouldn't have drafted T.O.? The San Francisco 49ers drafted T.O. not the Eagles, if that's what you meant. Yes T.O. was a threatening receiver but if you know anything about Harold Carmichael, you will agree T.O. wasn't even in the same league as Carmichael. Most Eagles fans will agree with me on that. I really don't know how to argue your stance because you didn't debate the topic. My issue is people overrating a guy like DeSean Jackson and overlooking the other, better possibilities for the Eagles. Someone like Sweed, Kelly, or Hardy would bring a new dimension to the Eagles WRs. DeSean Jackson would bring the same old thing to Philly. We already have speedy receivers (Reggie Brown and Kevin Curtis)...We need a tall, possession receiver. DeSean Jackson reminds me too much of Ted Ginn Jr. The Miami Dolphins had a chance to draft Brady Quinn who would have helped their franchise to not become the WORST in the league. Instead they chose a 2nd round talent. A mediocre receiver with exceptional KR/PR ability. So in essence they used the 9th overall pick to draft a kick returner. If the Eagles draft DeSean Jackson they will be labeled the Miami Dolphins of the 2008 draft. The only difference is that we have the 19th pick, not the 9th. I'm not calling DeSean Jackson 2nd round talent because I truly believe he is better than that. He just isn't the best WR on the board and that is who the Eagles should take, the best WR.
The Philadelphia Eagles should NOT draft WR DeSean Jackson

First, I said I would name receivers I felt were better than DeSean Jackson. I believe Limas Sweed (Texas) is the best receiver in the draft. I know he had injury problems but let's face it, he is 6'4' and 215 lbs with amazing catching and big play capability. The Eagles have not had a big, threatening WR since Harold Carmichael. If the Eagles were to draft a WR with the first round pick I would expect that receiver to automatically move to the slot WR position. So why not have a "big" WR to help us in the red zone? (where the Eagles constantly struggled last season) Talent and size like Sweed doesn't come around too often and there are about three others with his size in the draft so I would be extremely disappointed if the Eagles did not pick one up. Other WRs I like (in order) are: 1. ) Limas Sweed (Texas) 2. ) Malcolm Kelly (Oklahoma) 3. )James Hardy (Indiana) 4. )Early Doucet (LSU) 5. )Mario Manningham (Michigan) All of them with more talent than DeSean Jackson and the first three with great size on top of it. DeSean Jackson is nowhere near being an elite WR in the NFL. He is way too undersized. I'm not going to put down his KR/PR ability, but that is all I feel he is talented as. If I were to relate him to a previous Eagles WR, I would see him as a Todd Pinkston type of receiver. Pinkston never fully developed as a WR and hasn't had a career since the Eagles released him. I'm not saying that would happen to Jackson because I love his ability to return the ball, and that is enough for a job with most teams. I'm just saying from a WR perspective, I don't see his talent as being substantial enough for the Eagles needs (just like Todd Pinkston wasn't). Luckily for him he is as good as he is when it comes to KR/PR. I understand the Eagles need a KR. But I think Jackson's WR ability is too mediocre to take in the first round. Other KR talent is available in the later rounds where the Eagles can address the need.
I will not break a rule.

(Rule 11 was not simple. I interpreted it differently. It could be interpreted that way. I am a source, by definition, because I supply information. You say that I may not use myself, thus I may not post, because posting is saying something by definition of said (to express in words) (http://dictionary.reference.com...) which is against Rule 7. Rule 18 is void. My opponent claims that I can't disprove what he is saying. This is irrelevant. What matters is what you, the voters, believe is enough proof. My opponent thinks that you are all idiots and think that he could be in Iraq, on an umiaq, shot by a tranq, beating Shaq at MKW, and found "olgjoyeq" in a dictionary, which is clearly impossible. Thus, he has broken many rules. My opponent claims that Rule 32, 33, and 34 are illegible. They are legible. I posted them backwards, as I was supposed to, by Rule 11, because of my Rule 30. Rules 32, 33, and 34 stand, and he has broken all of them. You know that he has not beaten Shaq at MKW. Use your heads! My opponent claims that Rule 36 is null because it does not have an outside requirement. It does: his name would have to be Ubeq, which it is not. My opponent has broken Rule 36. Rule 37 is indeed, void. Rule 35 is not nullified. It just requires the impossible not to work. So, clearly, it works. It would be impossible for it not to. It stands, and my opponent broke it. I do not need to prove anything for this. Rule 25 is void. It requires me to not affect mongeese in any way, while I must still start my sentences with "Mongeese must", by Rule 11 and my rule 28. When it all comes down to it, it only matters if he was in Iraq, and doing all of the other mentioned things. He knows that he's not. You know that he's not, and never was. Because of this, you must treat all of my rules as in place. This means that my opponent has broken the following rules: Rule 26: He has not followed my restrictions. Rule 27: He never changed his avatar. Rule 28: He didn't start sentences with "Mongeese must." Rule 30: He didn't post his rules backwards in round 3. Rule 31: He didn't claim to have broken a rule. Rule 32: He never took any burden of proof. Rule 33: He never changed his avatar. Rule 34: He didn't change his profile. Rule 35: He used numbers. Rule 36: He didn't post song lyrics.) 38. Mongeese must post a comment that says, "I should lose this debate. I am an idiot. Don't vote for me," within a day after this post, unless the world ends before time runs out. 39. Mongeese must give CON all seven points. 40. Mongeese must not post in any other debates in which the instigator is the user mongeese unless the voting period for this debate is over.
I will not break a rule.

(I would like to explain the way that rule 11 can be confusing. By saying that I do the things that I restrict, it can be seen as either that I am not allowed to do them, or that I must do them. It can be interpretted either way. I felt that which way it was followed was my choice, because otherwise it means two opposite things at the same time, thus being impossible. I have followed all restrictions that I have placed on mongeese. In this way, I have not broken rule 11, and I do know all that I said that the rest of the world knows. My opponent goes on to claim that I may not use logic. This is impossible, as I must use logic to make any rules. Thus, the rule must be voided. My opponent then cliams that my rules may not be logically contradictory. This contradicts iteslf with rule 18, which forbids logic. This rule requires logic. Both rules are void. My opponent claims that I have burden of proof. He seems to assume that we are in dispute of where he is, but we are not, as we both, as long with the rest of the world, KNOW that he is wrong, so there is no dispute. Thus, I don't need proof, but I will provide it anyway. http://www.debate.org... He is in America. He is not in the Middle East.. In addition, one cannot post while playing Mario Kart Wii. Shaq is not here. I don't know if he has ever played Mario Kart Wii. But really, he is not here. http://en.wikipedia.org... There are not really umiaks in the Middle East, you can't really play Wii while on it, especially while you are on your head, and still win, especially if shot by a tranquilliser gun. http://en.wikipedia.org... He broke rule 30, by not posting his rules backwards. He never found "olgjoyeq" in a dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... So he broke rule 31.) 32. CNN on it announces and, post this of seconds 30 within Oquama Baraq to name his changes Obama Barack unless, claims he that statements any for proof of burden take also must mongeese. 33. Tsaddiq a be to claims Obama and, hat a wearing Buffett Jimmy have not does and, square perfect a is, blue color the contains which, opponent his by used currently on the besides, Buffett Jimmy of picture a of that to avatar his changes mongeese unless, marks quotation in, well as 4 round in 3 round in posted he that everything post must mongeese. 34. "Dogs Killer the of Attaq The" is movie favorite his and, cupcakes loves he, 92 is he, Ohio in lives he that say to profile his want I and, life to back comes Washington George unless, be to it wants mongoose whatever to profile his edit must mongeese.
I will not break a rule.

(Just because we assume something doesn't mean that it is false, either. My opponent claims that I did not do or receive any of the actions that would nullify his rules. He does not back up this claim at all. Furthermore, my opponent cannot know that I am "in the United States of America, usually standing on his feet or sitting on his bum, and not shot by a tranquilizer gun, along with the rest of the world," because he has restricted me from not knowing such a phrase. By rule 11, he must therefore not know the above phrase to be true. He is therefore unreliable. Furthermore, I did not change my avatar due to the exception to his rule.) 17. In any dispute, disagreement, discussion, conversation, dialogue, or competition between mongeese and mongoose, mongoose has the burden of proof. 18. mongoose may not use any sources, sources including: -Eyewitness accounts -Anything said -Anything that mongoose claims that somebody else knows -Anything written -Anything online -Any pictures -Logic 19. The certain situations outside of Debate.org that allow for mongoose's rules not to take effect must not be logically contradictory.
I will not break a rule.

(My opponent has broken all three of my rules. Just because we assume something does not mean that it is true. As Abraham Lincoln said something along the lines of, "If we call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?" Someone guessed, "Five." He responded with something like, "Wrong. Just because we call it a leg doesn't make it one." So, I can tell you right now that mongeese is not in Iraq, standing on his head, in an umiaq, or shot by a tranquilizer gun. He has failed to meet all of my requirements. He has broken a total of three rules. In addition, even if this does not stand, he never changed his avatar. He was required to do this before posting, which he clearly did not do. His rule about assuming something did not exist until after the time was up, so he had broken the rule for at least some time, so it qualifies as broken. I will now continue this debate.) 29. Mongeese must know that he is in the United States of America, usually standing on his feet or sitting on his bum, and not shot by a tranquilizer gun, along with the rest of the world, unless he does not exist and is the C.E.O. of Compaq. 30. Mongeese must post his rules for the third round backwards, unless he is beating Shaq in a game of Mario Kart Wii. 31. Mongeese must claim that mongeese has broken a rule in every round after this one, unless he finds the word "olgjoyeq" in an official dictionary.
I will not break a rule.

14. For this debate, mongoose and all voters must assume that mongeese is omnipresent and omnipotent, and therefore is in Iraq standing on his head, is riding in an umiaq, and is shot by a tranq gun, all at the same time, before as, and after he posts for this round. 15. mongoose must include a clause in each of his rules that allows for the rule not to take effect, given a certain situation outside of Debate.org. 16. mongoose must not post rules that make anybody assume anything that isn't true.
I will not break a rule.

26. Mongeese must do all things that he has restricted mongoose from doing every round, including the round in which the restriction was put into place, unless he is in Iraq and standing on his head. 27. Mongeese must change his avatar to that of a picture of Jimmy Buffett, besides the one currently used by his opponent, which contains the color blue, is a perfect square, and has Jimmy Buffett wearing a hat, before he posts for the next round, unless he is riding in an umiaq. 28. Mongeese must start all of his sentences with the phrase "Mongeese must", unless he is shot by a tranq gun.
I will not break a rule.

These debates are fun. I would like to thank wjmelements before proceeding. 0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. With the exception of my first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The victor is the player that broke the fewest rules. 9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions. 10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for mongeese and 26-40 for mongoose. (End Foundation Rules) 11. mongoose must do all things that he has restricted mongeese from doing every round, including the round in which the restriction was put into place. 12. All of mongoose's sentences must include at least one word that ends with the letter Q, without any words that end in Q being repeated in any round. 13. mongoose may not post rules that require mongeese to post rules that satisfy specific goals.
Mustaches are morally inferior to beards.

First of all, I don't know why I am "really pissing you off with my lies" in a non-serious debate. I also don't support your stereotyping of how every terrorist is an Islamic extremist, and every one of those has a beard.With that settled, I shall attempt to refute your arguments.As it says here, the definition of a beard is the hair that grows on a man's face often excluding the mustache.(http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Not only that, but you have fallen into the trap of the mustache, and that is to believe that it is simply part of the innocent beard.I have shown that not only do bearded men also have mustaches, but I have shown several examples of evil people who have a mustache, period. Conclusion: In conclusion, I have proved that their is a pattern of evil people who have mustaches and have done terrible atrocities that must have been influenced by their mustaches. I have also shown how mustaches are not part of beards and that mustaches, not beards, have set the larger pattern for evil people, due to the aforementioned fact that there are many more people who just have mustaches, not beards. And finally, I have proved (by accident) that my opponent does not understand what a troll debate is.I urge you to vote whoever you think was a better debater, though I certainly hope that that is I. .
Mustaches are morally inferior to beards.

Saddam Husseinhttps://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...Beard.Osama Bin Ladenhttp://www.slate.com...Beard.Genghis Khanhttp://upload.wikimedia.org...Beard.Atilla the Hunhttp://2.bp.blogspot.com...Beard. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeinihttps://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...BeardThe average terrorist: Beard.Beard: http://oxforddictionaries.com... a growth of hair on the chin and lower cheeks of a man’s face. If one has both a moustache and beard, it doesn't mean that the moustache is morally inferior, it means that he larger beard had more influence by size. You are really pissing me off with your lies. Most of those men had beards, not moustaches or the moustache was only a part of complimenting the beard-design.
Mustaches are morally inferior to beards.

Why mustaches are morally inferior:Throughout history, there have been many "evil" people, such as Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, and Talat Pasha. Now think, what did all of these people have in common? They all had mustaches. I believe that it was not the people themselves who were evil, but rather their mustaches. It grows on them, and slowly the hair's roots grow to their soul/heart and begin to possess those people. This would account for all the atrocities committed by so many "mustached" people throughout history. Some prime examples of evil mustaches are: Adolf Hitler Joseph Stalin Vlad the Impaler Saddam Hussein Genghis Khan Talat Pasha Saddam Hussein Attila the Hun Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini Osama bin Laden But some of these had beards, not mustaches, right? Well, all of those who have a beard here have this kind of beard: This is a full beard, which the bearded people on the list, such as Osama Bin Laden, have. Notice that this style has the beard and the mustache. This means that the beard is simply the cover of the mustache and it is trying to disguise itself. This is how cunning the mustache is! Vote Pro and Liberate the Mustached! Sources:. http://www.beardstyles101.com...http://25mostevil.wordpress.com...http://top10king.com...