BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Uncle Iroh is a good person in every way (ATLA)

While I technically don't know that he isn't, There is no evidence to suggest that he is. He is 60, Based on the anime, And 61 in the manga. He is shown to flirt with some women, Whose ages are unknown, But, As they flirt back, You cannot condemn him for his relations with women. June, The bounty hunter, Is probably 30-ish, Though I don't really have any evidence. The passport lady that he flirts with as well is probably 40 or older. On no occasion is he shown to have sexual or romantic interest in children. I conclude that while there is no definitive way to be sure, That you cannot prove him to be a pedophile. I say that he is innocent until proven guilty.
Bernie Sanders would have won running as an Independent

Con disproved half of Pro's case in R1 by demonstrating that it is far too late for Sanders to attempt a write in candidate. Actually, Pro provided the path to a Sanders victory. The Electoral college. In case you've missed it. Trump is none to popular among Republicans. And while Democrats wouldn't hesitate to vote against a candidate who won the majority vote. The Reps never would. Besides Reps could never govern from such a position anyway. If Sanders won the popular vote, he would be president. And while I commend Levi for the enormous amount of time he is putting into this debate, I think he is somewhat missing the forest for the trees. Trump can't even win Utah against a real 3rd party candidate. Freakin UTAH!! Really?!? Utah? And Clinton can't pull away from Trump. The polls say they are basically tied. That's how hated these two are. Con runs down Sanders, completely oblivious to the fact that none of that matters. No one cares, his winning platform is I'm NOT Clinton or Trump. Nothing else matters. He wins in a landslide of popular votes. No way for election committees to ignore the votes of the people. They might resist at first, but that wouldn't last long.
Bernie Sanders would have won running as an Independent

Never before in the history of this country, have two more unlikable, hateful, delusional, ego maniacal, dishonest people attempted to seize the helm of power. If you drive, there's a better chance you'll see a Four year old Obama bumper sticker than a current Trump or Clinton bumper sticker. Nor do you see Trump/Clinton signs in people's front yards. With sound reason, people hate these two. Those who actually vote in this election will not be voting FOR a candidate, they will be voting AGAINST the other candidate. If there was a viable third option..any option... people would choose it. Given the choice between an honest man that some may disagree with and two lunatics, how could anyone not choose Sanders? I purposely limited the rounds in this debate because It really is that simple. His campaign slogan could be - One sane person vs two nuts. You decide who runs the country. How could he lose?
The Drug Policy in Singapore is at Least as Good as the Drug Policy in Portugal

My argument will basically be that there's a presumption in favor of freedom to do things that don't directly harm or interfere with the liberty of others. This includes drug use. Therefore the optimal point of government intervention in people's decision whether or not to ingest drugs would be nil. By contrast, Singapore's policy is the opposite of this. Portugal's drug policy isn't 100% in accordance with liberty, but it's a far stretch better than Singapore's. There is a strong natural presumption in favor of self ownership. It's an intuitive thought that we and only we own ourselves. This line of reasoning leads us to favor prohibition against things like murder, rape, and slavery. But besides our own natural inclinations, self ownership is a necessary presupposition for argumentation. In order to debate freely, one requires access and control over one's person. Otherwise it's not you arguing but someone else through you. Therefore, anyone arguing against self ownership is negating themselves since they're in effect denying the presupposition necessary for them to engage in argumentation in the first place. Any argument along the lines of "self ownership does not exist" or the like is thus implicitly contradictory. Now from here the rest of the argument proceeds naturally. If we're self owners than the best policy is that which most respects our self ownership. Portugal through decriminalization is much closer in this respect than Singapore (which includes capital punishment as a possible punishment).
The Drug Policy in Singapore is at Least as Good as the Drug Policy in Portugal

This is a debate about two of the most radically different drug policies currently in place. Singapore famously has no tolerance for drugs and imposes the death penalty for possession of anything in "trafficking amounts. " In addition, "The possession, consumption, manufacturing, import, export, or trafficking of these and other controlled drugs in any amount are illegal. Persons caught with less than the Mandatory Death Penalty amounts of these controlled substances face penalties ranging from caning (up to 24 strokes) to life in prison. " In Portugal, "The new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. However, the offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance. "Reference:. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org... I will basically be arguing that the policy in Singapore is better. The reason I framed the topic as "at least as good" is to prevent CON from simply arguing that no policy is ever better than another. Of course, I won't be arguing that either, so if I do, vote down conduct, trolling, whatever. BOP should thus be evenly divided. I would also like to state that CON should accept that there are better and worse policies. Do not accept this debate if you were planning on arguing for nihilism or relativism about policies. You can of course argue for some kind of anarchism, as you would then argue that "no policy" is best, and that Portugal comes closer to that. This would still be some kind of realism about the normative status of policies. What IS up for debate are the criteria for what makes a policy good. I expect the debate to be about a) what makes a policy good, b) what makes a drug policy good, and c) to what extend the policies in Portugal and Singapore fulfill the criterion laid out in b). If PRO or CON fails to establish how empirical facts about these countries relate to what makes policy, or drug policy, good or bad, then that side has not made a complete argument.
You pick

The U.S. defiantly had a right and reasons to be in WW1. First of all, U.S. Intelligence intercepted a telegram (the Zimmerman Telegram) from Germany that told Mexico they would provide . It told Mexico it would provide assistance with reclaiming the lands that the US had won from them (Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona). Another reason is that the ship Lusitania was a New York ship that was traveling to Britain when the Germans subs spotted it and thought that the ships were hiding arms so it fired on the Lusitania. This outraged the US because the ship had done nothing to provoke the Germans. After that, the U.S. and the Germans made a pledge to double check ships and clear them of all passengers before sinking them, but the Germans broke this pledge. Basically, it was Germany's fault. I know little about this subject, but I tried my best. Thanks! http://www.studymode.com...
The Catholic Church is a bad thing

Given that my opponent has forfeited this round, I will finish with my closing statements. The Catholic Church is no more evil than any other wide-spread religion, and even further, the Catholic Church is not inherently evil. The Inquisition and Crusades are taken to be the evil doings of the Church, yet they are in reality, responses to dangerous events. Muslim invasion of the east put thousands of Christians in danger of persecution, and the Crusades were an attempt to help them. The Inquisition was an attempt to find traitors within Spain. These events are based on actual concerns faced by Catholics. I must conclude that, due to my opponents forfeitures, he is unable to find suitable arguments as to how and why the Catholic Church is evil. I would like to thank my opponent for the chance to argue my point, and appreciate his etiquette during the debate itself. I ask the audience to read carefully through the debate and vote for how they genuinely feel the debate went. I give my sincerest thanks to both my opponent and to the audience.
Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time

This is the last round of the debate so I will finish by pointing some facts I haven't yet and finish this debate. 1. Wilt was taller than most centers at that time. Having taller height sometimes does not help a player like some players you mention. Though, players who is tall certainly does have an advantage a few times when the player uses the advantage well. Many tall players failed to be good, but for ones that were good, height certainly was an advantage. 2. Wilt stopped scoring and started passing is the only reason he has 8 assist in one season. And certainly everyone knows Monta Ellis is a ball hog. Monta Ellis shoots and never passes. Wilt later never shot and always passed. Every center can ditch scoring and pass many times, it's that they choose to SHOOT and NOT PASS. Plus that is what centers was told to do: shoot the ball. 3. Wilt was a great center. Jordan was a great guard. THE BEST SHOOTING CENTER IN THE LEAGUE HAS HIGHER SHOOTING PERCENTAGE THAN THE BEST SHOOTING GUARD IN THE LEAGUE. Average field goal percentages- Center: 50%, Shooting Guard: 45%. Awards: Seasons Played Wilt 14 - Jordan 15 MVP Wilt 4- Jordan 5 (let's call that a tie since jordan played one more season) Alls star selection WIlt 13 - Jordan 14 (tie) All NBA first team Wilt 7 - Jordan 10 (guess people back then thought Russell was better) Jordan wins Scoring titles: WIlt 7 - Jordan 10- Jordan wins Jordan played with more good teams and players (you gotta admit 60's in NBA was boring) Jordan has higher PER than Wilt. Jordan has slightly more points than Chamberlain in PPG career. Jordan has more MVP, All Star MVP, and Finals MVP. Note: Look at Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell- Everyone in the 60's played the whole games 60's vs 90's Pace: Faster pace vs slower pace-advantage: 60's Height: Smaller height vs taller height: advantage 60's Competition: 8-15 teams vs 20-25 teams: advantage 60's Rebounds: 60's get higher advantage due to more misses and more shots Assists: 90's since assists were harder to get in the 60's (i have to admit) Points: More shots, fast pace, obviously the 60's MOST IMPORTANTLY: Minutes Played: 60's superstars played the whole game vs 90s superstars played 38 minutes! - You play what is in trend right now like slower pace and less minutes not do the unthinkable. LOL these were all the things Wilt was good at! I gotta admit, those 72 records are amazing! The thing is when Jordan averages 30 points, he shoots 30 points and never gets like a lot of point. Well, great debate with you. This is my first debate, so I have no idea how this will turn out. Thank you so much for accepting this debate. Since this is the last round, just point out things you missed and basically summarized the whole debate very short. I do, though, believe Wilt is a great player. He is number two on my list. But Jordan is forever!! Note that I'm not one of those Jordan bandwagons. I hope I win!!!!
Gay marriage should be legal

To start my argument I will first define “marriage” Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law [1] “Gay people are still people and they have the right to love whoever they want. Also once they reach 18 they are consenting adults and have the same rights as their heterosexual peers to get married.” You are correct. Gay people are allowed to love whoever they want. They are also allowed to get married. Gay people have the right to be united “to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law”. Marriage is the union of a man and woman so it is not actually possible for a gay couple to marry each other. “This campaign is now one that is supported by many members of religion too.” You said in your introduction: “My arguments are all based around the fact that I believe political policies should always be held independent of any religious beliefs.” Since religion should not matter in deciding the legality of gay marriages, this point is irrelevant. “When many people feel that due to oppressions in society their love is "wrong" or invalid and the best thing they can do is kill themselves, society has a serious problem.” Legalizing gay marriage would not change the way society views homosexual relationships. Most of the statistics you list have to do with adolescents and young adults who are hurting themselves because they are being harassed or because they do not feel accepted. Gay marriage would not help them Society would have to change their views completely and that will not happen by legalizing gay marriage. You also fail to mention how legalizing gay marriage will benefit society as a whole. You only show how it will benefit the LGBT community. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Gay marriage should be legal

Straight forward debate on gay rights. Men should be allowed to marry men and women should be allowed to marry women. My opponent will argue that this is only heterosexual couples should marry. Set up Round 1 = acceptance Round 2 and 3 = arguments and rebuttal Round 4 = closing speech (rebuttal but no new arguments) Rules Forfeit and you lose conduct. New arguments in R4 and you lose conduct. No "shouting" or bad language Only accept this debate if you are actually against it. I look forward to hearing my opponents points.
Humanity is a pathetic species. We must reform our society.

This has just got awkward. I will note that the point my adversary raised are somewhat true. I could dispute the fact global warming is man made with facts, I could also bring up that animals don't have rights. Even the treatment of humans boils down to morality. If you take into consideration nihilism for the fact that morality could be relative or subjective, then we are just abiding by the laws of nature. None of those points mean we are pathetic. AliensMy adversary has asked me to concede the fact that aliens exist. I will not do this even for the purpose of this debate and I will explain why. Aliens are not observable. Meaning if I were to conceded this, pro could assign any trait to them he wished to meet his BOP. He could say they could time travel, go into different galaxies, and speak 1 thousand different languages. That would classify them as superior in many ways. The issue is that he could just pick traits that he wanted. To compare humanity to something, it has to be something that is observable so the traits are in fact naturalistic. All information regarding intelligent life on other planets is merely speculation and guess work. We cannot compare ourselves to this and I will not concede the fact they exist. Nothing has shown this to be trueConclusionHumans are not a pathetic species. As my adversary notes"I acknowledge our superiority over all other species. "
Humanity is a pathetic species. We must reform our society.

I will not deny the points you have made. There is nothing I disagree with so far. However, you cannot deny the things I have mentioned in the second round. We may not be pathetic to anything on Earth. I acknowledge our superiority over all other Earthly species. However, as I have expressed in a previous debate, http://www.debate.org..., the possibility of other intelligent life existing somewhere in the Universe is so high, that is it reasonable to assume there is in fact life beyond Earth. Now, just for debating purposes, let's pretend there is evidence proving there is other intelligent life. If this were the case and this was a turning point in the entire debate, would you acknowledge our inferiority to alien species? Given this new situation, do you think aliens would be appalled by the things I have mentioned in round 2?
Humanity is a pathetic species. We must reform our society.

Global Warming I find it quite appalling how many politicians refuse to recognize the reality of global warming. In fact, global warming is caused by humans. Surely, there will be a few natural factors, but global warming is, for the most part, a human creation. We allow the construction of nuclear power plants to occur and we pollute our atmosphere by using gas-powered cars, If Humanity had been just a little more creative, all humans would be driving electric cars by now. Possibly even, we could be utilizing teleporters. Treatment of fellow humans I am appalled by humanity's treatment of its own members. Not only are we sexist - women earn less than men for the exact same job and exact same work hours - and racist - the unfair treatment of President Obama just because of his race - but we are also committing crimes and not doing enough to ensure these crimes do not happen again. We are not enacting the logical and morally correct gun control and we are not enacting the proper legislation that will ensure prosperity and justice for all. Treatment of animals Humans are animals, I know. But just for debating purposes, I will use this terminology. However, this is a debate for another time. We are not treating our neighbors with the proper respect. I am not opposed to vegetarianism, but I believe there can be an excess of meat. Also, the meat we eat comes from animals that have been chemically treated and abused. When I eat a steak, I look down at my plate and pay my respects to the pig that had to die. Then I eat it, savoring the taste and quality of the meat. Also, we do not treat our animals fairly by cutting down rain forests. The Amazon Rain Forest is smaller by a considerable amount and dozens of species become extinct DAILY! I will make additional points in the following rounds.
Humanity is a pathetic species. We must reform our society.

To uphold the resolution you must first show that P1 is true. This is a progressive syllogism [P1] Humanity is a pathetic species [P2] Therefore we must reform society If P1 is shown to be false, then P2 is negated with it. You conceded that I negated P1 so P2 falls apart with it. I would like to thank my adversary for proposing this debate and putting up a fight. He has offered a gracious concession and bowed out. This was eloquent and refreshing. Thank you for the debate.
Humanity is a pathetic species. We must reform our society.

I acknowledge my lack of evidence. I know that I will lose the debate. I proclaim my opponent the victor and I cease all arguments. Congratulations, Mikal. I must admit, you are the better debater. It is the burden of proof that always makes we lose debate. Whenever we have discovered proof of alien life, I will debate this topic again. Unfortunately, it won't be with you.
Air Travel is safer than Car Travel

Plagiarism is copy-paste from a source without citing it, which is what my opponent did in Round 2. He copy-pasted without referencing to the original source. Just because he then cited the sources in Round 3 does not mean that my claim that he plagiarized was wrong. He corrected it after I made my claim. However, I must cut the round short because I have very little time at my disposal. Thank you for your understanding. Now, if you compare the articles on Wikipedia regarding air safety and automobile safety, you will see that lists of accidental factors are quite different. Which one is worse? Let us compare: Air: Misinformation and lack of information Lightning Ice and snow Engine failure Metal fatigue Delamination Stalling Fire Bird strike Ground damage Volcanic ash Human factors Airport design Emergency airplane evacuations Runway safety Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org... However, if you look at similar descriptions of accidental factors for the car, you will realize that the car has lesser risks of being involved in an accident than a plane, not speaking by statistics, but by accidental factors. The plane has more chances of being hit by lightning and crashing than a car has. Even if it is hit by lightning and stops working, it can make its passengers in more safe hands than the plane can. However, we should also look at statistics. Deaths per billion passenger-journeys: Car: 40 Air: 117 Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org... Now, I entirely agree that on average, more people die while driving a car than by flying in a plane, but this is most probably due to the fact that there are far more cars than planes, and many more people drive than fly in a plane. That is why it is important to look at how many people die per billion journeys, not kilometers. If we had as many private jets or passenger planes as we have cars, there is no reason to think that cars would not be safer than the planes. We would see many crashes. Thank you.
Air Travel is safer than Car Travel

No plagiarism used here. I used word for word information when stating the fact #4 so there wouldn't be any confusion with my wording. My conclusion was not plagiarized at all. How could you possibly say i am plagiarizing? The sources I used for that round (I forgot to put them in 2nd round): . http://answers.google.com... . http://traveltips.usatoday.com... ***VOTERS*** It seems that my opponent is not cooperating with this debate, and if you see the sources I have presented above, you will see that there is no plagiarism.
Air Travel is safer than Car Travel

Thanks to Mirza for his acceptance to this debate. I will begin by stating some facts about Air Travel compared to Car Travel 1. In one year, the odds of you getting in a car accident is 1 in 18,585. The odds of you getting into an aircraft accident are 354,319. 2. In a lifetime, the odds of you getting into a car accident is are 1 in 242. The odds of you getting into a plane accident are 1 in 4,608 3. USA's 2008 Traffic Safety Facts Data boils down the millions of accidents and other statistics to 1.27 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. 4. Preliminary statistics for 2008 show only 20 accidents for U.S. air carriers operating scheduled service. This works out to nearly zero accidents per million flying miles. No one died, and only five people were seriously injured. In conclusion, driving is absolutely more dangerous. Even if it doesn't lead to extreme injury, any "fender-bender" means money coming out of you wallet. With more than 5 million accidents compared to 20 accidents in flying a year, air travel blows car travel out of the water. I will save the rest of my facts for my rebuttal.
euthanasia

firstly i'd like to say that euthanasia is not exactly a noble thing to do humans get depressed very fast ,from breakups to losing job humans get depressed very fast and to a great extent. however depression do fade away but in the short "depression period" someone may try to suicide but those who do not have that much guts turn to EUTHANASIA. euthanasia is yet another form of suicide but with a touch of a doctor, this is also a case of murder many people says that euthanasia should be conducted only after consulting many people and here is what i think about this---- young members of the family in their young twenties often wait for the family elders to die so that the property goes to them AND here is where they advise the older and usually ill elders to turn to euthanasia. say that euthanasia is legalised then what? that day is not far when hospitals will see is it profitable to keep the patients alive or not and soon hospitals may either use use passive or direct euthanasia to KILL the patients they think are fit to die