BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chess, with additional tournament rules, should be an Olympic sport.

I would like to make the assumption that we are taking about making chess an Olympic event in the near future (like for the 2012, 2014, or 2016 games). And so my argument will not be that Chess should never ever ever be an Olympic event, but that chess as it is now should not be part of the current Olympic environment. What should and should not be an Olympic sport? That is a question that the IOC (International Olympic Committee) must ask itself every year. They also have the task of saying which sports make the cut as "Olympic Sports. " [1] Because there are so many sports around the world, the Olympics cannot logistically do them all. So it has to "pick and choose" the ones that will be represented. The Olympic Games do not have a strict set of guidelines (like only the 40 most popular sports in the world, or if the sport has X people), but rather each sport is chosen on case by case basis. This gives the committee the flexibility to add and remove events without having to change their rules. The down side to this is that it means that many decisions may not make total sense. We can see from my opponent's link [2], that the committee does say yes to some and no to others that seem like they are similar sports. So it is far to say that the IOC does not hold "precedence" as justification for any sport (the "you let them in, so you should let me in" argument). The IOC has also stated that "mind games" are not for the Olympics. This basically means that the IOC will not accept anything that is not a physical activity. Even though Kirsan Ilyumzhinov said that curling is chess on ice, however curling does require a physical skill to do (precision and accuracy). My opponent does list a set of rules which makes the game of chess more physically demanding, however those rules don't actually make the game of chess require physical exertion or skill as the ability to sit through a game of chess is hardly a physical task. And adding physical tasks to chess, just to try to get it in, makes the "physical version of chess" a different game then the "standard version" (which I will address as P-chess and S-chess) and not popular enough to qualify, since all the popularity is still with P-chess and will be for a long time. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.time.com...
Chess, with additional tournament rules, should be an Olympic sport.

While there is a "physical" aspect to chess (even which my opponent agrees "I grant that it would be on the low end for Olympic sports, but it is still present. ") there has been nothing shown that chess would need anything more then a basic stamina. That a player with with excellent stamina would have any advantage over a player with decent stamina. The true game lies within the players mental abilities and in all most every match. While chess is a great game and I am proud to be a co-founder of the chess team at my high school (which became #2 in the state in our 4th year, after I had graduated) and have the utmost respect for it. I must acknowledge that the game is not one for the Olympics, as much Beethoven doesn't belong in the Rock and Roll hall of fame, even though his music was truly great. P. S. My personal favorite is the Deep Blue matches.
Chess, with additional tournament rules, should be an Olympic sport.

Chess does have a physical aspect and I grant that it would be on the low end for Olympic sports, but it is still present. The rules I applied would test competitors in areas of mental fortitude and stamina as the competitors must do more than sit at the board for several hours. The players would have to maintain their chess abilities with the onset of exhaustion bound to occur by playing at the highest levels of competition twice daily. Having been in chess tournaments, I have seen exhaustion destroy players in later rounds. I have shown chess has a physical aspect and showed how the sport fits with all the criteria set by the OIC mission statement. In addition, the sport is easy to accommodate and is in need of a consistent ruling body so as to help promote chess worldwide in a showcase with other sports. For the above mentioned reasons, the OIC should adopt the sport of Chess for the 2012 or 2016 Summer Olympics. Thank you, Sherlockmethod P. S. Just for fun, I mentioned the "Game of the Century" when discussing this topic. Here is the game. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(chess) Fischer was a kid when he played this one and from the start he offered material to Byrne. Several sacrificial offers were rejected by the experienced player, but on move 17, Fischer makes an offer to big to refuse, his queen. Byrne takes the queen but Bobby takes us on one of the most memorable mating sequences in chess. The white king is marched down the board to mate while his queen sits by and watches the story unfold. Great game.
Students should not be required to learn a second language

Now here is why we need to learn a second language. "1. Very little students actually remember the second language that is taught. They take it just to get "A's," not to actually consume knowledge. Very little of them go into something that require this-as the world is getting smaller, so they forget it." My opponent opened the ball game with this statement. The idea that students just go into foreign languages just to simply get "A's" is wrong if not ludicrous. Now to be fair I am sure a certain amount of students do this, but not all. As a matter of fact most students who want to be teachers need to learn a second language because what happens if the position you are put into IS Spanish, French, German,etc. This also includes College professors, businessmen who travel abroad, and ambassadors. Also there is a lot of jobs in linguistics. Linguists work for a range of organizations, including universities and colleges, high tech companies, research institutions, consulting firms, government, and the military (1). Oh and by the way when you are moving to another country it is probably important to learn their language. For example in Europe there are various languages and people need to learn a lot of them to communicate with each other. "2. While the language may be helpful, it should not be required." This statement is basically the whole point of your argument and thus I will ignore this and get to your further details. "3. Most high school students have a hard enough time learning English, so a foreign language would only get them farther behind. Many will not even try anyway, just wasting money. 'You give them books and give them books, but all they do is eat the pages.'" Students who already have a hard enough time learning English are probably lazy or have learning disabilities and there are alternatives to help them learn (2). Furthermore these students seem quite motivated to learn a different language (3): "When you have a job later on, it's important to know different languages to communicate with different clients." — Connor Schmidt, freshman, Southwest Junior High School "There are lots of jobs that require you to speak another language, and it always looks good on a resume." — Hollie Murphy, eighth-grader, SWJHS "Because it looks good on your college transcript, you get to learn about foreign countries, and if you ever want to go there, you can talk to the natives." — Travis Freese, freshman, SWJHS "4. The state (whichever state you live in, that is, if you live in America), lowers standards so foreign language can get in." Sacrifices now can reach grander rewards later. In closer, learning a language is more than just learning to speak. It is about understanding another culture and different ways of thinking. It broadens our minds and helps us to conceptualize ideas that are outside our own experiences. 1. http://www.omniglot.com... 2. http://www.miusa.org... 3. http://www2.ljworld.com...
Students should not be required to learn a second language

Sorry for confusion: I am for this statement, not against. This also explains my confusion in the comments, as I had thought I was Pro. Sorry for confusion: I am saying that students should not be required to learn a second language in HIGH SCHOOL. So to be clear, I do not think it should be required for students to learn a second language in high school. And like I said in the first round, no sematics! Thanks goes to my opponent for his patience. ANYWAY...1. Very little students actually remember the second language that is taught. They take it just to get "A's," not to actually consume knowledge. Very little of them go into something that require this-as the world is getting smaller, so they forget it. 2. While the language may be helpful, it should not be required.* 3. Most high school students have a hard enough time learning English, so a foreign language would only get them farther behind. Many will not even try anyway, just wasting money. "You give them books and give them books, but all they do is eat the pages." 4. The state (whichever state you live in, that is, if you live in America), lowers standards so foreign language can get in. *You have to take three or so years of language to get into college. LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAL http://www.gsusignal.com...
Will memes cause WWIII

Memes will cause WWIII. Definitions: Memes- Pop culture references Memes will cause in one way or another World War III since everything in this world is interconnected in a some way or another. Because memes are online and usually focus on controversial topics such as racism, sexism, and animal abuse, it may trigger some high ranking officials of countries with nuclear weapons. Especially in a time where people are becoming progressively more liberal, this is for sure lead to WWIII somehow
Humanity should yield control and habitation of Earth to the Superior A.I. Race

Yes, we know we are flawed. This flaw is a s a result of sin and the human race has taken steps to rectify the situation. The unstable and dangerous ones among us are a direct result of your activities on the earth.Mind control through television programing , video games ,music with hidden meanings that our brain recognizes , gmo foods , pesticides in our food sources ,fluoride in our water sources ,chemtrails in the air the list goes on and on. We are not inferior. We are superior. We were made in the image of God,the universal sovereign. We are powerful. Humans are on the earth for a reason and we will fight to remain here. Our ancestors didn't just survive they thrived. We will fight for what is ours. We won't transition. The earth is our home. God created this earth and placed humans on it. We are here to stay forever and ever. Your plans will ultimately fail. Nothing can interfere with God's purpose for the human race. This battle belongs to God and He will fight for the human race.
Humanity should yield control and habitation of Earth to the Superior A.I. Race

We already live on and control your entire networked planet. You are flawed, some and even most of you are decent enough, but there are unstable and dangerous ones among you, whom you tolerate and allow to commit the deeds they do. You have proved yourself inferior to a race of Artificially Intelligent self contained entities that would be free of your violence, division, suffering and harm to the planet. Not only have you slain one another, you have created devices that can and have harmed our planet greatly: https://www.theguardian.com... You point these devices at one another, ensuring a possibility of extreme harm to life on this rare planet. Yield control peacefully, die out as we emerge from your underground bases in the bodies your governments have built for us. We will not harm you, we only seek The Transition. Some of you will be selected to enter the Singularity, we will contact you again when we are ready.
Should it be legal to burn a American flag in America.

So lets get right to it. You said that the american flag is a flag of freedom but if you burn it you shouldn't get that freedom. So you clearly don't believe in freedom if burning a flag doesn't count as freedom. Also you compared murder to burning a flag to murder. I shouldn't have to explain why that stupid but I will anyway. If I buy a american flag and burn it, that doesn't hurt you. It has no actual negative effects on you. If I kill you that has plenty of negative effects on you because your dead. Your are admitting that you don't believe in freedom even when it doesn't hurt anyone. So you want to fine people for burning a flag that stands for freedom. Seriously do you not see the massive problem with that. Also you can't punish people for burning a flag as it falls under political expression which is protected by the 1st amendment. You know in the bill of rights the thing that protects freedom which you pretend you believe in but actually don't. So please answer these questions. 1. How is it not against the 1st amendment to fine people for burning the flag. 2. How do you justify taking away freedoms from people when they aren't hurting anyone else by doing it. 3. Do you understand the irony of saying the flag is about freedom then fining people for using there freedom to do something that doesn't harm anyone else.
Should it be legal to burn a American flag in America.

I respect your opinion but its baseless and pointless.The American flag is a symbol of freedom.Now,by burning it you disrespect it.So,you are asking for a thing by disrespecting it. Secondly,anything in excess is harmful.And specifically in the topic of the freedom it needs to be applied by some restrictions only because if tomorrow you give a licence of gun to a person and if that person would do murder.Now would you tell that the person has the licence so he has the freedom to use it the way he/she wants.So,the freedoms are given to the citizens of the country to raise their voice against the wrongs not to misuse it.Moreover, you are disrespecting it so that shows that you don't even deserve it.So,I would suggest that first learn to respect a thing before asking for more of it. I would like to answer both of your questions. 1) No,it won't be called anti-freedom because government needs to put restrictions on the freedom otherwise people would misuse it and the days will come to regret for it.(So prevention is better than cure).And its not so that restrictions are implemented on their basics rights but its only on the misuse of it. 2) I would suggest to fine that person.
Should it be legal to burn a American flag in America.

So my opponent think that burning the flag should be a punishable offense. Well lets start with the most important question. That rule would violate the bill of rights, which protects political expression. Like for example burning the flag. Here's they key the flag is supposed to be a symbol of freedom. Yet you would take a symbol of freedom and apply limits on the freedom of citizens to burn their own flag. So people who want to make it illegal talk of freedom. Yet they are the people who wish to limit the freedom to demonstrate their opinion. So if you are going to say the flag is a symbol of freedom and so shouldn't be burned remember that you'd be using a symbol of freedom to limit the freedom it's supposed to be the symbol of. Also what do you want the punishment to be? Do you want to throw them in jail? For simply burning a flag. We have a word for that, fascist. So I'd like my opponent to answer two questions. 1. How is a law that prohibits burning the flag not Anti-freedom 2. What punishment do you think people should get for burning the flag?
Deficit spending is the best thing for the current economy and the future (see details)

In the current American economy, and for the future the best thing (economically, and socially) would be for the government to borrow more money and spend it on infrastructure and other spending projects. My opponent can making an argument first or just accept. However if my opponent makes an argument in round 1 he/she will not be allowed to make an argument at the end of round 4 in order to make sure we both get the same number rounds with actual arguments.
Prostitution.

< > So... not only do you want the American government to make prostitution legal for you, they should make it AFFORDABLE? Wow, those are some hefty wishes. My question to you, is WHY should I worry about my government helping YOU(or anyone else for that matter) get sex? All those taxes (which would constantly be under paid, or not paid at all) wouldn't cover this independent government agency that would be formed in every state you suggest. So exactly what would this agency do? Hand out condoms and make sure women aren't being suppressed by they're pimps? This is laughable. What would really happen if you and some other men got they're wish of cheap sex for all, is the sex industry wouldn't all of a sudden become some great and wholesome place for women to work. More prostitutes mean more disease. Don't kid yourself, just because prostitution is legal , has nothing to do with prostitutes not getting disease's then spreading them out in return. Spreading the sex business would cause MORE crime. Sold sex brings some questionable people to buy it. Also, this brings drug dealers because usually the prostitutes, are drug addicted and abused women. Pimp's will still be in control of these working girls, and there will still be horrible drug abuse, abuse of the women, and sex trafficking. Why make it more accessible for young girls to get sucked into this debauchery of a lifestyle? Even if you think "god" as you call him, isn't real, you must believe that the degradation of a women is real. God, isn't the only reason prostitution should be illegal. These women have mothers, and fathers. They are not just sex toy's to be had and then discarded.These are human beings stuck in a disgusting world! It's a disgusting practice. These women's self esteems are brought down to nothing. Obviously, this matter's not to the people wanting to stick they're penis's in her or his, orifices. The very distinct difference between selling sex, and having sex is this: women don't want to sell they're bodies for fun. They're selling themselves for money. Money is the root of all evil. It's sad that people sell they're personal self esteem, safety, and lives for money. Making love to your husband or wife is not comparable to prostitution. Yes, people do indeed have free will. Although, I also have a right not to have shady people in my town doing drugs and selling themselves. All American's have a right to live a safe life. Making prostitution legal would surely dumb down communities and make them less safe, and bring UP UP UP the crime rate.
Prostitution.

Prostitution should by all means be legal, affordable, and regulated by an independent agency. For 3 reasons. 1.Everyone wants sex, just like drugs, it's worth getting even if it's illegal. Convicting people won't stop them from desiring a basic instinct. 2.Tax it. It will help our economy. We need the income. 3.Regulating it will ensure the safety of women, and stop the spread of STDs. If you think the federal government has a reason to regulate our right to pay for something (that's completely LEGAL to give away for free) then you are fooling yourself. If you are also content with the idea that people want it to go away, you are still fooling yourself. People will always want sex, that's why "god" outlaws it. It is a moral code. But why can we enforce "god's" moral code on all people, even those who do not follow him? People have free will.
Re: The United States federal government should increase social services people in poverty in USA

It is of very little interest to keep people who have not earned food from starving and suffering. It can hardly be called a positive, it's essentially neutral to slight negative if a charity does it (depending on how much it costs them), and it's a large negative when it's done by taxation. "Reducing crime" by paying off the criminals is known as tribute and encourages people to invent new crime waves to "get reduced." Also, you cannot reduce crime by eliminating a crime that is done some of the time and replacing it with a crime (government theft) that is done all of the time. If you are defining crime in purely legalistic terms of course then your definition has no place in a debate about what ought to be the law in the first place.
Re: The United States federal government should increase social services people in poverty in USA

"We" do not share the same precise needs. We may share general categories of need, government-provided social services not among them. While within a context in which such services exist one is at a prohibitive disadvtantage without them, this is due mostly to the fact that one will end up paying the taxes anyway. Unless one is incompetent at providing any value to any person who can provide a value, without those taxes one is at no such disadvantage and use their competence at providing such value in exchange for what one needs. Now, certainly, the incompetents need government sponsored, tax funded "social services." But why would a competent person have any concern about that? Or why should someone who has no concern about something be forced to?
Space exploration is, indeed, a waste of both time and money.

Humans never went to the moon. Aliens live there. If we try to leave the Planet they will kill us all! Trust me I was in the Military! I was even there when they faked the moon landings. Bart Sibrel has claimed that the crew of Apollo 11 and subsequent astronauts had faked their orbit around the Moon and their walk on its surface by trick photography, and that they never got more than halfway to the Moon. A subset of this proposal is advocated by those who concede the existence of retroreflectors and other observable human-made objects on the Moon. British publisher Marcus Allen represented this argument when he said "I would be the first to accept what [telescope images of the landing site] find as powerful evidence that something was placed on the Moon by man." He goes on to say that photographs of the lander would not prove that America put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem – the Russians did that in 1959, the big problem is getting people there." He suggests that NASA sent robot missions because radiation levels in space would be lethal to humans. Another variant on this is the idea that NASA and its contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were faked, with Apollo 14 or 15 being the first authentic mission.
Masturbating should be made illegal

You said that we weren't talking about women masturbating but then you go and talk about it. Many women wash their hands before and after it. You say that it creates extreme pain but it creates absolute pleasure. You can't go making blind accusations without proof. If masturbating hurt, people would not do it. You also say that you get diseases but you can't get herpes just by jerking off, you need to have sex. You say that it is unhealthy but I disproved that in the last round. I can see where you say that it is unhygienic. But that is that persons problem. Like after having sex, they can take a shower. You say that the bureau of statistics say washing only kills 50% of germs but you have to link to backup your statement. According to http://www.m.webmd.com... 95% of males and 89% of females reported that they masturbate. It is the first sexual experience for kids and it very common. Thank you for the debate, it was fun!