BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Which team won civil war? (pro-team cap, con- team iron man)

I have watched the movie, so my argument has many spoilers.Team Iron Man won as Captain America lost his shield, failed to impact the Sokovia accords, got his entire team declared as fugitives and in the end, Bucky had to be shut down.Even if he failed to take down the accords, he still didn't sign it, meaning he and his team will be protecting the world without regulations. Also, he did manage to break his teammates out of the prison. True though, Bucky was shut down, but for reasons unrelated to the Cap vs. Ironman. In a way, he wins, because now he can't be mind controlled.As for Iron Man's arc reactor, he can easily build another suit. Even in this movie he was using Mark 45 or some other new suit. But Captain America has lost his shield.What I mean is, they had an epic battle, and Iron man lost that battle. He can make a new suit, but he still lost that fight. It is true he gave it by choice, but still, he lost his vibranium shield, and vibranium is a rare element. I don't need to add that he is no builder, and that without the shield he has lesser chance of beating Iron Man or other supervillains.His shield is a part of him, I agree. But his superpowers are in his super strength. He won't have much protection, but he did give it up by choice, out of sympathy for his friend. He won, because he became the better man.Bucky shut himself down by choice, but then again, Captain America had ran away from the final stand due to Bucky. Although Bucky was saved, Captain America couldn't bring back his childhood friend and had him in stasis.Their friendship is what I think was saved. At least now, Bucky is safe, away from harm. Which was what Cap wanted in the first place.
Which team won civil war? (pro-team cap, con- team iron man)

I have watched the movie, so my argument has many spoilers. Team Iron Man won as Captain America lost his shield, failed to impact the Sokovia accords, got his entire team declared as fugitives and in the end, Bucky had to be shut down. As for Iron Man's arc reactor, he can easily build another suit. Even in this movie he was using Mark 45 or some other new suit. But Captain America has lost his shield. It is true he gave it by choice, but still, he lost his vibranium shield, and vibranium is a rare element. I don't need to add that he is no builder, and that without the shield he has lesser chance of beating Iron Man or other supervillains. Bucky shut himself down by choice, but then again, Captain America had ran away from the final stand due to Bucky. Although Bucky was saved, Captain America couldn't bring back his childhood friend and had him in stasis.
Taxation is theft, change my mind.

It would seem that the base of our disagreement lies within our definition of theft. My view is that taxes are the payment of the services the government provides that makes the jobs we have possible. Without taxes these jobs would not exist therefore we would not be making as much money to begin with. This is a weak argument, but one has the choice not to pay taxes. They either have to not work or move. Cheers, you made some really killer points.
Taxation is theft, change my mind.

So what you are saying is that because taxation is "needed" therefore it is not theft to go home to people and force them to give you their money, if they resist, you forcefully put them in prison with violence. I believe that roads would be able to exist even without taxes. Some examples: www.libertarianprepper.com/without-government-who-will-build-the-roads/ www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVYnQyZWlik You said that taxation is not theft because I would not be in the same position without it. Agreed, but this is just saying that theft is okay if its necessary, even if that would be true, its still theft, and therefore you have not changed my mind. But again, the definition of stealing is "to take the property of another without permission or right, especially secretly or by force." Dont you think that it is exactly what the government is doing? They take my money without my permission, and they do it with force, I have no choice but to pay, and if i resist, they will use gunviolence.
Taxation is theft, change my mind.

The Problem is that you use a bad analogy. The government is not Ikea and money is not furniture. The reason I believe that the "Its needed" argument is valid is that without roads, one could not get to work. Without laws enforcement, one could actually get money stolen. I say taxes are an obligation not because life would be better without them, but because we could not go to work and get the money we earn without them. If you took out a loan and had to pay back 10% interest, you would do so at risk of losing something more in the process. Just because you think you should not have to pay at an interest rate that high does not mean someone is not going to forces you. A job in a country like the U.S. only pays as high as it does because of government spending and social development. If you would like to work in a sweatshop with no taxes and make next to nothing, be my guest.
Taxation is theft, change my mind.

Just to clarify: im not an anarchist, I do believe that taxation is nessesary. But that does not mean that taxation is not theft. Taxes has to be collected by force, with threats, and at gunpoint if needed. The definition of steal or stealing is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force. This is exactly what the government is doing. ( http://www.dictionary.com... ) As I said, I do agree that some of the money is well spent. But the "Its needed" argument is irrelevant. If I would need a new chair for example, does ikea have the right to come to my house and force me into buying their chair and put me in prison if i resist? Most people would say no, even if the chair is needed.
Taxation is theft, change my mind.

The problem is that taxation is required for federal funding. In a perfect world, the government would make its own money. This is not a perfect world. The simple fact is that if you provide an alternative method for the government to obtain funds in order to progress the interests of the nation, then taxes are our best bet. I don't like them either, but they are necessary. The reason why taxation is not theft or robbery is that you would not be in the position that you are in without the developments provided by the state. In turn, it is required that some of the funds that you have acquired because you live in a nation with developments that made your job possible are given back to the system to repeat the process. Taxation is not theft, it is an obligation. I do, however, support the argument that taxation is done wrong. Taxation in its purest form is completely justified.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

~Counterarguments~ 1. Marriage started by religion. - Whether or not the origin of marriage was religious or not does not matter. In modern times of America, a secular nation adhering to a separation of church and state doctrine, religious reasons to keep marriage heterosexual is not valid. - Marriage didn't originate in one place, but was developed in many societies during different times. Monogamy wasn't the only type of marriage that was developed. I doubt my opponent is still an advocate of polygamy, endogamy, exogamy, proxy marriages, or arranged marriages. 2. Science nature of Marriage. - Institutions have been created and developed by human beings as a mechanism for cooperation and social order. Government is an example of a human institution, as is marriage and money, and even friendship. Even though such abstract concepts do not exist amongst every other animal, this does not mean we should throw away such concepts. - To some we may not need marriage, and in fact some do believe that marriage is pointless. However, many people DO want to get married, for reasons ranging from love to personal sentiment to economic, and it should be their right to be able to. 3. Gay marriage already legalized. - While a very few number of states such as Massachusetts is the only state that fully recognizes same-sex marriage, many other states of America still do not recognize it. Note that I intend this debate to be based on American law, as is implied in my first round (sorry if I didn't make that clear). My side still stands as there are still a large number of states who are not in support of gay marriage. ~Conclusion~ My opponent's points have been refuted accordingly. Gay marriage should be legalized since there is no legal reason to make it illegal, and is almost seen with parallel with the prejudice against blacks and women not too long ago in history.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

Topic Analysis: I think I can safely assume that, if I can prove gay marriage shouldn't be legalized, then I win the debate. Debate: 1. I believe all homosexuals should have same rights as any other person. I don't, however, believe they should be allowed to marry. 2. Gay people shouldn't be allowed marry because marriage was started by religion. Most religions believe being gay is wrong. 3. Science supports the fact. Marriage is just something humans make up. They believe they can be one. Obviously, religion is what created and supported this. As animals, we don't need marriage. 4. Gay marriage is already legalized. Several countries and states have already legalized gay marriage. Including: Canada, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and states in the US. I argue this because it contradicts the debate starter's argument, therefore, proving he is already wrong. a. . http://gaylife.about.com... Conclusion: I have stated that marriage was not intended for gays by the creators of marriage(religion). I have shown that marriage is what humans create to satisfy ourselves only psychologically. I have also proved that my opponent is already in the wrong by stating gay marriage is already legalized, therefore, making this debate irrelevant. I shall await my opponent's response. Thank you.
MIG's Tournament: On balance, the minimum wage is harmful to society (take 2)

Well, I fear there is little more to say at this point. The vote is clear, the arguments unrefuted etc. Micro, should you wish to debate this at some future point I'd be happy to do so. As to others interested, I'm happy to debate this. Any challenger should be wary though - R2 was not the full extent of my arguments! Finally, thanks to the voters who vote, and the readers who comment. And with that, I'll let this debate go into the voting period.
MIG's Tournament: On balance, the minimum wage is harmful to society (take 2)

Thanks to Micro for posting instead of simply letting the time drain away – it's a kind touch that indicates thoughtfulness and acknowledges the presence of myself, as well as the audience. I commend Micro for his gracious manner of forfeiting. All that said, I believe the vote to be clear, as demonstrated by my opponent's clear words last round. If need be I can elaborate more deeply in R4, but I don't think I shall need to. To anybody reading this, if you're interested in my case or simply wish to challenge it, perhaps we could debate it at some point. Simply inquire in the comments or send me a message if you are interested. I would note to the reader whom is still reading that various points of interest were not properly expressed in this debate. I need merely point to various bits of empirical evidence and the quagmire surrounding such evidence to give an example. Thanks to Micro for the debate, no matter it's short longevity, and thanks to MIG for hosting this tournament.
MIG's Tournament: On balance, the minimum wage is harmful to society (take 2)

I’m very happy to be debating this interesting topic with Micro. MIG, I again commend you for running this tournament and am grateful for understanding that this debate is slightly behind time.Points of NoteObviously, I’m not to make arguments this round, nor will I be having rebuttals in R2, but it’s important to make crystal clear a key point in this debate to the reader. We are not debating whether the minimum wage is economically harmful . The word ‘is’ reflects a more holistic, sweeping view; on the whole, all things considered, is the wage harmful? This distinction is fairly important, although obviously this debate will have clashes on the economics side of things - for instance, one may see monopsony become an issue in this debate on the economics side.Just to be clear to readers, we’re discussing a single minimum wage. We’re not discussing variations, such as a minimum wage per occupation.My other note is that Micro states ‘economy’ to be ‘A US national economy...’. While it is useful to have constraints on scope, evidence from other countries with the minimum wage and the subsequent impacts is permissible. Furthermore, understanding factors that could affect the impacts of the minimum wage is important, and factors may differ between countries.I hope I these points serve as a clarification to the reader as to the scope and weighing of the debate. They are by no means arguments and should not be treated as such.Also, this is somewhat a rerun of a previous debate. I'll be saying the exact same thing for my first arguments, except I will include some useful economic graphs.Micro, I look forward to a good debate.
MIG's Tournament: On balance, the minimum wage is harmful to society (take 2)

Resolved: On balance, the minimum wage is harmful to societyThank you, logic, for agreeing to debate this topic with me. I would also like to thank Man-Is-Good for the tournament.Debate Structure1. Acceptance2. Opening arguments only3. Rebuttals4. RebuttalsDefinitionsMinimum wage: The lowest amount that emmployers can legally pay their workers per hour of labour. (http://www.debate.org......)Society: The community of people. On balance: Overall; taken as a wholeEconomy: A US national economy, resources, generally jobs and money. Harm: To do damage to.
Certain arcade games are too close to gambling (full res. in debate)

Your arguments don't make sense. You seem to be debating as if you're on my side, and apparently completely ignored my opening. The resolution clearly stated that certain arcade games should be banned, and I am on the Pro side. Round 1 also stated that Con will be arguing that all types of arcade games should be allowed to remain in arcades. You are debating on the wrong side. I thought I made the sides pretty clear. I'm not sure how this is going to work out now. Either switch sides in the next round, or you lose.
Certain arcade games are too close to gambling (full res. in debate)

Gambling-the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning illegal-prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules Minor- not of legal age (in this case under the age of 21 or 18 if you live in Nevada) Arcades-An arcade game is a coin-operated entertainment machine, typically installed in businesses such as restaurants, public houses, video arcades, and Family Entertainment Centers. Most arcade games are redemption games, merchandisers (such as Claw crane), video games or pinball machines. If gambling is illegal for minors then so should arcades because the basically share the same concepts of action. In a casino you trade in your money to get chips equal to the same value of money as you put in. These chips only have value in the casino where they are used to place bets. In Arcades people of any age can trade in their money for tokens which can be used to spend on any game they want to play like redemption games. Games like the "coin pusher" where you put in a token and as it falls you hope it tips over more coins the more coins tipped over the more tickets are won. The seems an awful lot like a slot machine where you put in a quarter and you pull the lever the higher the score the more money you win. Gambling is putting up stakes in hopes of winning Well basically most games showed in a arcade shows this same concept so wouldn't this be encouraging kids to gamble without them knowing it?
Certain arcade games are too close to gambling (full res. in debate)

Good luck on this debate, Arcade games are definitly not close to gambling. Now let me re-visit the defintions of gambling, 1. 'Play games of chance for money; bet.' 2. 'Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods.' Arcade games are played for entertainment. Not money or anything else. Kids are too young to be putting their money on bets. Especially for arcade games.
Certain arcade games are too close to gambling (full res. in debate)

I made a very similar debate a while back. I'd like to try debating this again. Full Resolution: Based on the definition below, it can be proposed that certain arcade games are gambling, or at least so close to gambling, that children shouldn't be allowed to use them. If gambling isn't allowed for children, these arcade games should be illegal in arcades as well. Gambling: 1. a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. b. To play a game of chance for stakes.
Are people truly evil in nature

To fully appreciate the argument, I believe we must have a good grasp on the definition of the word evil. By the biblical definition, God decides what is good and evil. It should be noted here that there is no middle ground for God. I think this is a poor definition. When humanity speaks about what is moral and immoral. Conceptually what we are talking about is that which is either beneficial or harmful to ourselves. Since humans are also a social species, It is no surprise that we also extend this standard to society as a whole. The word evil, In a colloquial sense, Is simply a higher degree of immorality. By juxtaposing these two definitions of evil, We can see what I believe to be the first problem with your claim. Your definition for evil is not practical since it depends on the opinion of a supernatural being that hasn't been demonstrated to exist. Even if I was to grant you on faith that God exists, We then run into another problem. How can I know that god's opinion about good and evil are correct? Couldn't he be lying? Couldn't he be wrong? If evil is defined solely by the virtue of God's edicts, Then god could decide tomorrow that homicide is just and that saving someone from drowning is evil. I didn't want to make this a God debate, But since God is part of your position, I felt it necessary to mention the parts that apply to our topic. The next problem with your claim is that you say children are born with the inclination towards evil behaviors and have to be taught morality over time. The behaviors you describe of children are not necessarily evil. The moral implications of an action depend entirely on the situation. Stealing is a behavior that can be morally justified at times, Especially in cases where the thief needs the stolen object to survive and the victim was not caused any significant harm, Besides losing an object. Children start off with a basic package of survival instincts and decision making processes that are specifically meant to help them survive. Through experience, The children are rewarded or punished for their actions, And this becomes their basic moral standard going into adult life. I believe that people are not simply good or evil. People have a system of beliefs and desires. These beliefs and desires will ultimately lead to actions that are either moral, Immoral, Or arbitrary. Some people may have a belief system that tends to lead them to immoral actions. This is not the same as being evil. To be evil would be to have a belief system such that one makes consistently immoral decisions of high degree. The furthest I could ever go would be to say that people tend to make marginally more immoral decisions than moral. Now that I've given my logical argument, I would also like to appeal to you as human and express the hope that you don't think most people are evil because I would like to believe that you like humanity at least a little bit.
Grilled Cheese is the best food

I thank the Affirmative for the debate. I will be offering 2 contentions that show why we should negate. CONTENTION I. It is impossible to objectively decide that one food is "better" than another without some kind of specific standard. Even then, it would be impossible to determine which standard determines what foods are "better" others. Saying that one food is the "best" implies that that food is better than all others, so without a way to judge one food as "better" than another, there is no way to logically determine that one food is the "best." We can't determine that one food is better than another because "better" relies on personal preference, which is based one what one person values, and is inherently not objective. The only way to say one food is the "best" would be if everyone agreed that it is true, which is clearly not the case. The author says we should affirm based on a set of characteristics that he believes to make a food desirable, but in no way proves or has ground to prove that these standards are normative or universally accepted. I might say that a hamburger, for instance, is better because it has more protein, but nobody could prove that more protein is of greater importance than "a crispy texture." (Not to mention that some people might not enjoy the crispy texture.) Insofar as my opponent can not prove that the set of qualities he points out in a grilled cheese make it superior to all other foods, there are no grounds to affirm. Thus, we must negate on the basis of it being impossible to objectively judge one food better than another. CONTENTION II. Saying that one food is the "best" is ethnocentric and would be saying that one culture is better than another. Each culture has its own unique cuisine, that people of that culture often believe to superior to that of other cultures. Grilled cheese is a dish obviously exclusive to the Western culture. Thus, saying that grilled cheese is the "best" food would be saying that Western culture is superior and/or preferable to all other cultures. This leads to the rejection of ideas and influences from other cultures as inferior, which is not only morally unjust (as it leads to the idea of other people being lesser based on their race or ethnicity), but also pragmatically bad because it deprives cultures of the opportunity to learn and improve by taking from each other. For an example, we look to the countless Chinese and Mexican restaurants in the United States of America. If we were to have viewed our cuisine as superior to that of other cultures, these restaurants would not exist to bring please to millions of people who enjoy their food. Now we see that the clear choice in this debate is a vote in favor of the negation because it is impossible to objectively prove that one food is the best, and doing so would be that we are valuing Western culture above all others, which has negative consequences. Thank you.
Illegal Immigrants

"We" won't have any problem. Us. Are we the only ones that matter? Nevermind sending people back into war zones, some of which we've played no small part in creating. Is the imagined inconvenience of Americans worth more than the lives of foreigners? How many American citizens do you think would pass such a test? There are plenty of Americans that can't answer basic questions about their own country, let alone an "extremely hard and rigorous" one. And there are also plenty of Americans that despise patriotism. Should those people be deported too? And if not, why the double standard? Why should immigrants be expected to be better Americans than Americans are? If more than 250 people pass this test of yours, how do you go about choosing who is to be let in and who isn't? And the 3 countries you chose are rather bizarre. If someone escapes North Korea, they're more likely to end up in South Korea (via Thailand) than the US, and their aim will be to escape oppression, not cause it.