BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
university education should be free

actually, no, education is important. you see the poor people down the streets? they are poor as they cannot afford their education fees, so they can't find a job. it's so unfair to find out rich guys pointing and laughing at poor people who can't pronounce words correct, read properly when they find jobs. what will happen to them? and their next generation? don't you think it's cruel? university education should be free because of people who desperately want and need education. some people hates education, since they think it's boring, pointless... No! if you live to have no education, no anything, you will be crying to go to school. you won't even be on this website! moreover, an article:" Forget tech skills, young people need to go back to the old-school basics to get a job" explain about the problem of people only relying on tech. what's worse... poor guys don't know anything, not even what's a phone. they education to learn " old-school basics" and tech to earn jobs.
university education should be free

1. Unimportant If there is too many graduates, the government doesn’t need them. It is just for their good. We should not really give them education if they can’t take the responsibility to take care of them. Also not everything is free. Everything needs a price. If governments give free education, they need that money back. The government can’t do the important stuff of their job. They can’t do anything great because they are helping all the people and can’t do things for the economy. 2. Opportunity Cost Even if we pay for university education, we need to pay higher taxes. That is almost the same thing. Also then because of the poor who need the education, the rich need to pay taxes they don’t need to pay. 3. People will think that education is nothing. People will think that education is nothing. They won’t pay for it. They will not try their best and just relax. Then they will get bad or no jobs which is basically the same as paying education.
university education should be free

young people struggle for jobs. It is ridiculous for people to be paying money for education when they need money for rent, food, and daily needs. Also, some people need to sacrifice one of them... job or schooling? Of course schooling. This is one reason they couldn't achieve their dreams, like opening shops, being a singer or so on, because of the lack of money. Generally, many youngsters want good universities. Free unis might not be the dream school or fulfill their needs. So I believe this motion shall stand. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201486
Go is an overall superior game than Chess.

Before we begin, I'd like to offer a brief statement concerning the subjectivity of the debate. As Pro has pointed out, subjectivity is an important factor for voters to be aware of. Although the debate is fundamentally subjective in character, hopefully we can defend the objectivity of our opinions by defending the objectivity of the process that gives rise to our opinions. That said, I can already see a problem arising if our subjective interpretation of "objective facts" differs. Extending Pro's example, where Pro defends Dells against Macs because they are cheaper, I might turn the argument and defend Macs because Macs are more expensive. Point is, objective facts must still be interpreted to have any weight, and that interpretation itself will be contestable. I don't have any sure answers to the problem. For my part, I will try to defend my interpretations with as little personal bias as possible, and ask Pro also remain aware of (and try to avoid) the possible bias at play in interpreting those facts. Other than that, I look forward to a fun and thought-provoking debate.
Go is an overall superior game than Chess.

The PropositionThe full proposition is as reads: "Go is an overall superior game than Chess."While I am using this debate as a sort of distraction from my more serious debates about God and such, I still wholeheartedly agree with the proposition and will be defending it to my dying breath.I, as pro, shall be arguing that Go is an overall superior game than Chess. As Con, my opponent shall be arguing that Chess is an overall superior game than Go. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on both of our shoulders.DefinitionsChess: I'm sure nearly everyone, if not everyone, knows what chess is. It's important to clarify this is the European version of chess, not shogi or anything of the sort.Go: If you don't know what Go is, then use this debate as an opportunity to broaden your horizons. Go, as it's known in the West (Igo in Japan, Baduk in Korea, and Weiqi in its homeland of China), is a strategy board game played on a 19x19 grid-like board.Overall Superior: better in more ways than not.Subjectivity of the DebateWhile it will be mine and my opponent's personal bias toward one game over another which will motivate our arguments, our subjective opinions should be supported by objective facts. For example, even though it's an opinion that Dell laptops are better than Macintoshes, it can be supported by the objective fact that they are cheaper and can run .exe files without the use of Bootcamp or some other such nonsense.Debate StructureRound One: Introduction and Acceptance onlyRound Two: Opening arguments onlyRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Rebuttals and closing statementsTo ConcludeI thank my future opponent and the viewers for making this debate possible, the topic of which is of much importance to me.
playing sports is way better than sitting at home and playing video games

first off i would like to say i do agree with you on some facts. like first off i agree that it is ok for disabled people to play video games because what eles could they do around the house. but i am talking about all of the fat over wieght kids that all they do is play video games. that is horrible for little kids. it is very unhealthy and it is killing them. there are too many fat people in the usa. it is ok to play video games sometimes but you should be more prone to be more active and so you have a higher energy levle and you can do things. Second i would like to point out that the reasoning for more violence in the usa is for all of those fat kids (wich they got that way from playing too much video games) who got picked on all there started to play the new gta (grand theft auto) games then growing up and shooting up schools and such.http://www.msnbc.msn.com... they end up thinking that the kind of stuff you can do in those kinds of games are ok to do. they end up going to jail and becoming losers. all i am saying is that there is more of a negative effect on people who play too much games. if you get out there and become more active you would essentually become a much better person.
playing sports is way better than sitting at home and playing video games

Well what about those with physical disabilities that prevent them from being able to participate in physical sports such as chronic fatigue syndrome http://www.cdc.gov... or arthritis http://www.arthritis.org... and there is even a list of conditions on this page http://sped.wikidot.com... do you think it is wise for people with these physical disorders to participate in sports which could potentially worsen their conditions, I think not. The simple fact is not everybody can participate in physical activities due to bodily conditions so would it not be wise to let them play video games in order for them to entertain themselves? And how does sitting around your house playing video games make you a loser, from current trends in culture (well culture of the U.S.A.) people with game consoles (especially the newest ones) are held at a higher esteem and tend to be more popular in many social areas (this is more from a teens standpoint upon the subject) http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.examiner.com... http://www.associatedcontent.com... . I would also like to say this majority of programmers make a $53,964 salary http://www1.salary.com... and employment in this field is expected to continue to rise http://www.bls.gov... http://www.infoworld.com... you can also see some of the "perks" of their jobs (so to speak) and from what can be seen people who are interested in video games tend to be interested in programming http://mvpmodelingsolutions.com... http://www.racialicious.com... http://degreedirectory.org... now what are the odds of getting into any major league sport .00565% chance of that happening http://www.thesportdigest.com... http://forum.bodybuilding.com... , now are those high or low odds I am fairly certain that is considered to be a low probability bu the odds of being a programmer are significantly higher such as nearly 100% if you put your mind to it http://freelanceprogramming.blogspot.com... http://www.articlesbase.com... http://www.educationcenteronline.org... . You see video games interest the young in other fields of expertise other than that of a pro-athlete which you have a low chance of becoming. Although I agree that sports can help you stay physically fit that is not the only way, you can simply go to a gym and use the exercise room or jog it is not necessary to play sports in order to maintain physical fitness http://www.thedigeratilife.com... http://ezinearticles.com... . Playing video games also comes with certain benefits such as improving hand-eye coordination and enhancing creativity http://www.selfgrowth.com... . The idea of who is and who isn't a loser is a subjective matter due to the way you use it hence bearing no weight for I am fairly certain that people with a chance at making higher wages and a low chance of going out of business seem pretty cool to me, just use Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak as a reference http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.microsoft.com... http://allaboutstevejobs.com... http://www.woz.org... .
Social Democracy

I would like to point out that this was suppose to be a five round debate but the Pro side has forfeited two of them. The pro speaker defined social democracy is the beginning of this debate and I have rightfully attacked that. Now it seems he no longer cares for that definition and has changed it to suit his side which is not fair. The pro side has brought fourth many statistics on countries that have social democracies, but he has been unable to explain what these really mean. Happiness is very subjective and cultural difference must be taken into account. I do not need to challenge the success of other governments. The debate is whether to install it here in the United States. The cultural, cognitive, and biological diversity unique to the united states makes it impossible to mimic the social democracies of Europe. The burden of proof lies with the pro side, and that side has failed to give specific reason why the US should change to a social democracy. He has brought up the success of other countries but this has limited applicability.
Social Democracy

Forgive me for not refuting your points earlier. I have a little more time now. My opponent, lyokowarri0r, sites no sources in this debate, so keep in mind that his arguments have no evidence attached to them here.My opponent seems to presume that I am a Socialist of some sort and that I would like to try that system here. I believe it was the implication that I am in favour of a Scandinavian-style, Dutch-style, UK-style, Canadian-style social democracy as opposed to state socialism and Marxism in Cuba, the USSR, China, and North Korea. My opponent makes no effort to challenge the successes and effiencies of other social democracies. Really, there is no argument here. My opponent expresses uncomfortability with the concept of Socialism. Actually, I notice now that I should have rephrased my definition. I mean that I am still a Capitalist but seek a strong social safety net. Denmark is freer than many countries in terms of its markets and enterprises. I would write more and flesh out my thoughts, but I have to go now.
Social Democracy

I have not been very active on debate.org recently, and I hope to reenter the stage with more profound and broad issues. Here, I will be arguing in favour of Social Democracy, and my opponent will be arguing against it. Each side will have 72 hours to write an argument, there will be five rounds, and each argument has a limit of 10,000 characters (the maximum). There will be open voting for a month after the last argument has been posted. Sources must be cited in one way or another, either by simply posting the link or in the MLA format. I hope to be courteous and not digress too far from the central point of this debate. Social Democracy is an economic system and political system, and I hope to point not only to Europe and Canada as success stories but also make the case that it could work here in the United States. Let us begin!
Lionel Messi is better than Cristiano Ronaldo

Ahh this old debate. Cristiano Ronaldo has tested himself in two of Europe's top leagues, with huge success in both, winning the Champions League with both clubs and numerous league titles in both leagues, did i mention, he won the golden boot in the Premier League while playing in midfield... Now, as the quality the defenders in La Liga is obviously sub standard, allowing players like Soldado and Forlan to score many many goals, whereas in the premier league, they have failed, Ronaldo on the other hand has scored many goals in both leagues. As the quality of La Liga defending is so poor, we have to look at the Champions League for an indication of how good these two players are, now, it's all very well and good knocking in goals against lesser opposition in the group stages, so we have to look at the knockout stages of the champions league, Guess who is the top scorer in the knockout stages of the Champions league??? yes it's Ronaldo, with 35 goals in knockout rounds of the Champions League. Now you have to take into account, that Messi was playing in a team which was built around him, Iniesta, Xavi, Villa, Busquets, Messi, it was a system working together, he was a player in a team, now don't get me wrong, Messi is a great player, but he relied heavily on his dominant team around him. Look at Ronaldo's Portugal record, now for arguments sake, lets only take into account their records where their international scoring careers began, as Messi managed to get sent off within 2 minutes of his international debut, this is actually helping your case... Messi first international goal was March 2006, Ronaldo's 9th Portugal goal was in March 2006, now i'm willing to discount those 8 previous goals for the sake of this argument, since March 2006, Messi has scored 44 Argentina goals, Ronaldo since March 2006 has scored 43 Portugeuse goals, now, take into account the Argentina team in the time... Aguero, Di Maria, Higuain, Tevez,, Pastore, the list goes on and on, quality attacking players, with a midfield of Mascherano, Cambiasso, that is a very solid team, a team which won the Copa America and made the final of the World Cup now look at the Portugal team in this time... Nani, Qauresma, Helder Postiga, Hugo Almedia, Raul Merieles, Tiago, i'm really struggling to find a single player who would get into that Argentina side, maybe Deco, in 2006, would have just made it. Ronaldo scored the same amount of goals as Messi in this time period, in a much weaker team, and he is 3 years older that Messi, Ronaldo is past his peak and still surpassing him even this season and last, a time when Messi should be in his prime at 27, he is being outplayed by a 30 year old.
Lionel Messi is better than Cristiano Ronaldo

Not only do I think Lionel Messi is better than Ronaldo, is also think he has had a better career so far, despite being two years younger. I admit that last season Cristiano Ronaldo was unstoppable, he was he best in the world. Also, at the start of this season Ronaldo was playing better than Messi, but lately Messi has been much better. The way he is able to control a game, score goals, and assist is just unbelievable.
Lionel Messi is better than Cristiano Ronaldo

So you have forfeited the round? you can't fight your debate because you can't argue with facts! You wish to base your opinion on the present? Ronaldo is has been superior for the past 2 years. Ronaldo scored 17 Goals in the Champions League last season, and 12 the season before that, finishing as top scorer both times, When Lionel Messi was top scorer in 2009 he scored just 9 goals and 2010 just 8 Goals, all this in a dominant team built around him! And before Lionel Messi was top scorer in 2009, Ronaldo was top scorer again in 2008, Ronaldo undoubtedly has more individual talent and longevity. You say Messi is back to his best this season? Well if that performance against Man City was anything to go by... that terrible penalty and then missing an open goal with an awful header, this is back to his best?? There is only one winner in this debate.
Lionel Messi is better than Cristiano Ronaldo

Loyalty doesn't actually mean anything in the world you know, it's just a word thrown around by the media, Do you think Messi would stay at Barca if they got relegated? exactly. I'm not saying Group stage matches don't matter, i'm saying it's alot easier to score goals against teams like Malmo, Bate Borisov and Ludogorets than it is to score against Bayern Munich, Chelsea, Atletico Madrid etc; Ronaldo has the most goals of any player in history in the Knockout stage of the Champions League. This season, Real Madrid are top of La Liga, Ronaldo is the top scorer in the league, the players 2nd and 3rd in the top scorer table are Messi and Neymar whereas the next Real Madrid player in the list is 6th place, with just 12 goals, How can you say Messi does everything on his own? when his very own teammate shares the burden of scoring goals, Ronaldo is a better individual player than Messi. https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com... In regards to the World Cup, Ronaldo was obviously injured and surrounded by a team of inept players, but he played on and never once blamed his injury, he was still their best player with the same amount of assists as Messi and 1 goal. The fact Messi won the player of the tournament was almost laughable and pretty much anyone who followed the world cup will agree he was certainly not the best player and in typical fashion, all of Messi's goals came in the group stages, against Iran, Bosnia and Nigeria, He didn't contribute a single goal in the knockout stages and his performance in the final itself was not very good at all. Ronaldo is obviously a superior player, he is the current Ballon d'Or holder, current top scorer in La Liga, last seasons La Liga top scorer, Last season Champions League top scorer, you can't argue with those stats, no one can.
Lionel Messi is better than Cristiano Ronaldo

Messi does not need to prove himself in any other league with the success he has had in La liga. And we both know that Messi can't be compared with players such as Forlan and Soldado, becasue Messi is much better. It's not about Messi being scared to fail in the premier league, it's about his loyalty to Fc Barcelona who helped him and his famiily when he was a child. And the thing about saying that Champions league group stages goals don't really matter.... of course they do. Champions league is for the best teams across Europa, the biggest soccer competition that exists. And in that case Messi beats Ronaldo. If you watch Barcelona's matches nowadays you will see that Messi doesn't rely a lot on his team mates. you see him going into his own half, asking for the ball, and then starting the attacks, and in most cases also finishing them off. I admit that Argentina have better players than Portugal, but Messi playes better for Argentina than Ronaldo does with Portugal. Messi took Argentina took the world cup final last year, whereas Ronaldo was a flop, not even getting Portugal past the group stage. On top of that Messi also won player of the tournament. And what I was really saying is that Messi is better than Ronaldo at the moment. Messi is catching up with Ronaldo concerning goals in the league, having just 2 less goals now. But when you look at what they give the team, like assists, and work rate, Messi is far more productive than Ronaldo. His ability to control a game is sensational.
(Only for Theists) My God is greater than your God:

You are claiming that the Cosmos, Nature, Great Spirit, etc, as being one and the same, are synonymous, with God. You are wrong. You are claiming that I believe in Jesus being God. You are wrong. Your reasoning indicates your belief that the physical manifestations of the natural world are God, similar to the reasoning of pantheistic Hinduism and the animist religion of Native Americans. While rationalizing that all these manifestations of natural processes are also God, you then claim there is only one God, much as a confused Christian believes somehow in the mystery of the trinity, uttering with the tongue that God is One while believing in the heart, mistakenly, that God is also a triumvirate. Again, you are wrong. I end this debate by stating as fact that my God created your god. You have been misguided by the creativity of my God into mistaking the creation for its Creator. Your god is a deception. Your vanity has deceived you.
(Only for Theists) My God is greater than your God:

We're talking hypothetically, the theistic God is a human invention meant to represent a higher power which does exist, the Great Spirit is a better word. You believe that Jesus is greater than Krishnah, even though there is only one God. I was taking into account the power displayed in our respective bibles, and mine out did yours infinite many times over. I can prove that my God exists, you cannot. So let us demonstrate our Gods power- mine can actually act, yours cannot.
(Only for Theists) My God is greater than your God:

There is only one God. Because there is only one God, your argument is nonsensical. Just as you cannot be greater than yourself, your God cannot be greater than my God, because He is One and the same. My God is your God and your God is my God, the One and only God. Whether you acknowledge this or not is irrelevant. Your position for debate does not exist: You are standing on the same hill I am and then claiming that you are closer to the sky than me. Nonsense.
(Only for Theists) My God is greater than your God:

Your argument is invalid. Mankind is one community, one species, regardless of race, colour, nationality. The God of mankind is One God. God is Great. He is not greater nor greatest because nothing is comparable to Him. "Greater" is meaningless with reference to God because there can be no meaningful comparison between the Creator and His creation. Your God and my God are the same, hence your argument is invalid because it is not a valid position to take.
(Only for Theists) My God is greater than your God:

Great is defined as:'Of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above the normal or average.' Greater, therefore, is defined as:'Of an extent, amount, or intensity considerably above another being.' As stated before, the miracles done in the Deistic bible are of a higher extent and intensity than those in the theistic bible, and therefore, the deistic God is greater than the theistic God. In regards to your response, you probably believe that Jesus is greater than Krishnah, and therefore, this argument makes no sense.
(Only for Theists) My God is greater than your God:

The Deistic bible the cosmos, which is proof of his existence. So, enable to determine which God is greater, we should compare hoarders done in their books: like Joshua and those pagan priests, let's compare our Gods and see which is greater. Your God brought 10 plagues upon Egypt, and nearly destroyed the empire altogether, but my God is responsible for supernovas which vaporize entire solar systems, and which can be seen billions of miles awayYour God turned water into wine, but my God invented a giant hydrogen bomb called the sun, which in the mid 1800s emitted a solar flare of such magnitude it wiped out all the electricity on the globe. Your God brought a dead man back to life, but my God invented decadent and life. Finally, my God exists, and your God doesn't. Your God does parlor tricks.