BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A gigantic, transparent bubble should be placed over the entirety of Canada

Invade Canada Well to the untrained eye it looks like a barren wasteland, But to a capitalist and a champion of the free market it becomes obvious that canada is a breeding ground for oil and lumber profit. Like you said it's a gigantic land it's a gigantic land with no one to defend it! Even if it IS a wasteland just look at Las Vegas! it's in the middle of a desert, and we made it a breeding ground of Gambling, Prostitutes, Free Marriage, And Crappy pawn shows! We could make canada the new Las Vegas! And when it has so much more land (like you said) we could cultivate it SO much! (Well I'm sorry that you didn't post the definition of it in the first round as is normal conduct in debate.org. And as a troll debate id like to ask why you wouldn't you? Just a thought although) Giant Robots Well considering you think an energy bubble could keep canada away, how could robots not be a thing? If you somehow make a GIANT forcefield keeping canada in, then how could we not make a Sh*tload of robots to protect it? And for them to side with the canadians? All I have to say is... Really? As I posted before with my video, they are highly annoying and illogical. Robots are primed to be logical and would see canada as a threat, and contain it.Giant Soundproof Black Box Well you don't see the anti Christ in North Korea, do you?
A gigantic, transparent bubble should be placed over the entirety of Canada

I appreciate my opponent's initiative in making up his own ideas. All ideas are welcome to solve this issue; however, the Canadian bubble is by far the best solution. I will respond to my opponent in turn:Invade CanadaUnfortunately, and invasion of Canada is not a good or even prudent idea. Canada is very big, and not in a good way. Most of it is barren, snowy wasteland, which is absolutely worthless even to the Canadians because 90% of them live within driving distance of the US border. What good is living space if the living space is crap? That's why Hitler didn't invade Iceland - nobody really wants to live in Iceland, because of all the ice!The bubble is superior to invasion for several reasons - for one, it traps the Canadians into the hell they have created. That is a fate worse than death - being forced to live with the anti-Christ and all of their bad singers.Giant robotsMy opponent appears to misunderstand what 'bubble' means; I apologize for not clarifying this earlier, but the 'bubble' is not a literal bubble. Think of it as like the bubbles that surround the Gungan underwater city, if those bubbles were reverse engineered to keep certain things (like Jar Jar Binks) in or out. Such a bubble would clearly be strong, because many monsters live underwater.[1] Giant robots are nice, but you would have to build a whole lot of them to cover the entire border (all 5,255 miles of it).[2] Assuming we have one robot for every ten miles, that would require 525 giant robots, which doesn't even cover martime areas.[3] Additionally, giant robots have a propensity to turn on humanity, meaning they could join Canada. No bubble has ever been recorded as having turned on humanity.Giant black boxNorth Korea spouts propoganda across the DMZ all the time, but I haven't seen any stories of South Koreans becoming convinced and defecting to North Korea.References:1. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;3. Math
A gigantic, transparent bubble should be placed over the entirety of Canada

How I agree with you that Canada is a HORID country, your idea is So Horrible I have proposed some better ideas.1.Invade Canada Like Hitler once said "We need living space for our people!" As you said Canada, no canada (I'm not capitalizing that bitch of a country anymore) only has around 35 million people. Why not conquer them and gain more land for our needs? And once we invade, and win, we could mine for oil without them bitching about the environment (We all know most of the hippies come from canada).And with all their undeveloped land we could cut cut down all the trees and get lots of wood at once! And as you said the citizens are horrible, that's why when we go to war we start a mass Genocide of their citizens! No Prisoners! AND if we kill all the citizens then the anti Christ wont rise from it!2. Keep a Giant army of Robots surrounding canada instead. This is a LOT better than your bubble. Bubbly is also an adjective linguistically, there must have been a reason for this, the adjective means, To have a happy or giddy personality, Also easygoing. And just look at how Vulnerable a bubble is! ( http://www.youtube.com... ) But look at how strong this robot is! ( http://www.youtube.com... ) Just look at SHEER POWER! if we had a GIGANTIC army of Robots surrounding canada NOTHING could ever get past! Not even Crazy meth filled liberal hippies could pass those! 3. A Giant Soundproof Black BOX would be better than a Transparent Bubble (this is all based that the bubble doesn't pop) Since the bubble is transparent that means the anti-Christ could still put up Propaganda and people in Alaska could see it and be like " Oh, that's very persuasive!" And everyone would be on the anti-Christ' side, and we can't let that happen! So Black would be better, since it would make it opaque. Now the bubble is horrible, it could just roll away and we wouldn't be able to get it back! But a Box stays in one place Unless we wanted to move it! Therefore a Giant Soundproof Black Box would be a better use than a Giant Transparent Bubble. I mean, we don't want to SEE the canadians do we, Or even Hear them?! Look at how ugly they are and how annoying they can be! ( http://www.youtube.com... ) Me and pro both agree that canada is a problem that needs to be solved, However, my solutions are much more Efficient and Reliable than his.
NHL is a better sport than MLB

Thank you for arguing. After reading your argument, I'm going to have to say that I still disagree with you. You state that NHL is more exciting than MLB, and that Baseball players just chew gum and eat sunflower seeds. You also mention that they just sit around for most of the game. However, there is more to Baseball than just simply chewing gum. Every player gets a chance, just like hockey. MLB is a game of strategy and skill, which includes more exciting moments. Home runs, triples, and grand slams are very exciting and rare. With goals and hockey, they all mean the same: 1 extra point for the LA Kings. MLB offers the possibility of one hit turning the tables. This is why Baseball teams can make bigger comebacks. By the way, I was a little late as well. I was busy debating with someone else who gave me a hard time. I couldn't do research either. I await your rebuttals.
NHL is a better sport than MLB

Thanks for accepting. Unfortunately I didn't have time to collaborate much evidence so i'll briefly explain why I think NHL is better than MLB. Solely because NHL involves more exciting moments. When watching baseball it is mostly about strategy than anything. Most of the players are out there just sitting chewing gum or eating sunflower seeds. To me that is just boring. I would much rather watch a more exciting game. Sorry for the short argument as i stated earlier I was pressed for time. Thanks again.
Daniel Day-Lewis's Performance in There Will Be Blood is the Best performance in years

You are proving that No Country For Old Men is a better movie then There Will be Blood and that is not what this debate is about. You are not saying that Bardem's or Tommy Lee Jones' performances were better then Day-Lewis', you are just saying the movie is. And just to let you know, Day-Lewis has been up for and won more awards then any of the cast of No Country For Old Men. And in speaking about Gangs of New York, although I too love that movie and his perfomance, Daniel Day- Lewis was very much more cartoonish in it then Daniel Plainview. Therefore actually discuss something that goes with the debate topic next time.
Daniel Day-Lewis's Performance in There Will Be Blood is the Best performance in years

From your previous entry, it seems you did not attempt to prove me wrong. I too have seen No Country For Old Men and I too have loved it. I think it might too be a better movie then There Will Be Blood, but for that, I am not sure. However, there was no performance, although all great, did not come close to Day- Lewis'. Bardem's was great but was one dimensional. Tommy Lee Jones was a very Tommy Lee Jones role. It did not require great acting from him, just for him to be himself . However, Daniel Plainview, although just a crazy and villianous, was not one-dimensional. And this was the first time anyone has ever seen such a role from Day-Lewis. He makes acting look like a serious artform by the way he really becomes his characters.
Daniel Day-Lewis's Performance in There Will Be Blood is the Best performance in years

When my opponent and hopeful friend visionsofdylan says that Daniel Day-Lewis's performance of "There Will Be Blood" is the best performance in years I, at first, thought he was correct. Receiving critical acclaim, many various awards, and looking like a movie to remember for ages, it is an amazing movie. Not the best in years. But instead of taking a trip back in time to point out the several gems that surfaced these past years, I will point out another movie that has been released recently. "No Country For Old Men" was, in my opinion (which I will present first) was an unexpected marvel in recent cinematic history. Featuring my personal favorite, Tommy Lee Jones as the old and tired Sheriff Ed Tom Bell in the midst of a drug deal gone wrong, and one Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) who is one of the most cruel villains in any movie I've seen or heard of. Finally, response-wise, No Country For Old Men did receive more awards and nominations than There Will Be Blood -No Country For Old Men http://www.imdb.com... -There Will Be Blood http://www.imdb.com...
the death penalty should be legalized everywhere

uhh this is my first debate I am really excited to get a feel for this whole debate thing. im hoping that this will get me all warmed up for the debate team. so please be hard on me (I wont cry) because I will be going up against people of much higher grades than me. I think it is time for us to talk about how we deal with individuals who just don't have any morals at all and just don"t care about the majority of society
the death penalty should be legalized everywhere

I can see where you are coming from. but the whole deal is that there are so many repeat offenders that are still out loose in our society today. when a person commits a serious crime and are sentenced to "life" seeing as 'life' really means 30 years has justice really been served? my final conclusion is: It is cheaper to execute people It is a lot of money that the government has to pay to keep people imprisoned for a long period of time due to the cost of supplying foods daily. Necessities such as water for drinking, showering, and toilets. Execution on average costs about 90,000 for one person. Every year that an inmate spends in prison costs approximately 22,000. So if a person commits murder to the first degree disregarding any circumstances the amount of years the person would be sentenced is 20-25 years so the cost of the inmate would be approximately 506,000. And just to put the cherry on top.... each prisoner in Canada's 54 federal penitentiaries costs tax payers approximately $177,788 up 46% from a decade ago. the resolution be it resolve that the legalization of the death penalty must stand
the death penalty should be legalized everywhere

Alright, we're talking about Canada! I really haven't heard much from them besides universal health care, and their currency, so this will be really interesting! Alright, so I will begin by giving a definition. Miscarriage of justice "A miscarriage of justice primarily is the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime he or she did not commit. " I'd like to start off my debate by explaining that I will begin by given three contingencies, and then summing them all together with a conclusion paragraph. Contingency 1: While I'm not entirely sure of what Canada's government looks like, I am imagine that it's judicial system is somewhat similar to Americas in the sense that a judge gives the final ruling. This article: http://www.cbc.ca... will give you an idea of how wrongful charges come about. Since there is no law, stating when a situation deserve the death penalty, it is highly interpretive, which is simply not fair. I should not be put to to death after committing half the crime the next person committed, which resulted in a life sentence. Contingency 2: Next, studies have shown that simply putting someone down, is just as and if not more expensive then putting someone in prison for life. Sources: http://www.deathpenalty.org... http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... http://www.forbes.com... Contingency 3: Is eye for an eye, really a smart system to go by? If we are to go by this system, then what should we do to people who kill multiple people? Certainly we cannot bring them back to life, only to give them another lethal dosage. Also, some judges may give a rapist a death penalty, while others would give a much lighter sentence. This is not fair. While I am not justifying the actions of a rapist, it's just not fair to get a sentence based on a judges philosophy. To sum it all up, there are just too many issues with the death-penalty to allow it to remain everywhere. Could there be situations where the death penalty is a suitable punishment? Of course! But that is not what the topic is asking us to debate. the death penalty should not necessarily be legal everywhere. Thanks, I am finished.
the death penalty should be legalized everywhere

The death penalty should be legalized in Canada. Be it resolve that legalization of the death penalty must stand Reasons why the death penalty should be legalized is because it ensures justice to those affected by said crime. Secondly, people sometimes go to jail, serve their time, and are released and commit another crime. Thirdly, it is cheaper to execute people. why should merciless killers live for the rest of their lives when they brutally ended innocent lives and caused a lifetime of endless pain to the victim"s family and loved ones? Would you really be able to live the rest of your life knowing the man who tragically murdered your precious daughter and or son is still alive and could even one day be out in the world again? There"s only one way to get justice, and it"s only fair that the murderers and rapists should die. some people may say that it is not fair to those who committed the crime. but is it fair for the victim to live the rest of their life knowing and reliving the incident over and over again in the head? -secondly- People can go to jail and serve their time and be released for what? To commit the very same crime if not worse? Some people may argue that people can change. According to statistics people don"t change. It is statistically proven that 52% of the people that go to jail end up back to where they started. Prison doesn"t work 50% of the time, so why do we keep sending people there? If something didn"t work 50% of the time, would you keep doing it? There are so many cases of repeat offenders. specifically repeat sex offenders. Not only are they almost certain to continue sexually abusing people after having served their time but some eventually kill their young victims. bobby stovall, mana tengu tamaiparea, william scott, robert vanbraeckel, timothy fredrick, dallas harvell, roger charette, and stephan haord all these people are repeat sex offenders the list goes on and on and on. an interesting yet so devastating of a story that caught my eye. is the donald blom case. In 1975, Blom kidnapped a 14-year-old girl, gagged her and raped her. He locked her up in his car trunk, but she managed to escape and turned him in. He went to trial and was convicted. Three years later, in 1978, he committed aggravated assault. In 1983, he was arrested again for criminal sexual conduct. The same year, he also threatened two teenage girls at knifepoint in a remote area. He tied them to a tree, and put socks in their mouths. He choked and revived one of them several times, and said he was going to rape them. would you want a man like this roaming the streets of your neighbourhood? offenders like these should to be put to death. therefore, ensuring the safety of the people in their society and giving justice to the families of the victims.
It is a more reasonable outlook for one to be racist than sexist.

Ladies and gentlemen, I represent the side supporting the resolution which states that 'it is a more reasonable outlook for one to be racist than sexist'. The reasons that this is correct shall become more apparent throughout the debate but I shall give you a brief overview of the foundation of my case in support of the extent to which is reasonable for one to be racist, as opposed to sexist. The most obvious one, at face value, is that no matter what culture you are from, every living entity owes half of its life to either gender, in some shape or form. The second pillar on which my case rests is that the races don't need each other whilst the genders do. Now, I shall progress onto the extensive arguments portion of debate.The first point I shall be raising is that of the debt one owes to their parents, and thus to each gender in a society. This is regardless of how abusive one's parents were as well as whether or not one believes in 'emotional debt' or fairness of any kind. In the context I am using the phrase, 'debt' refers to what one logically owes another based on their origin. You see, by the process of meiosis[1], the gametes, each from one gender which is definitely different to the cell of the other gender, progressing to form the zygote, that is the first cell of the new human being. This new human being is thus inevitably indebted to both givers of the gametes for their very existence simply by the laws of biological science. It will not, unless it is a rare mix if all races, be existing to owe all races for its existence. Thus, there is far more hypocrisy in one discriminating against a gender, to which they owe their very existence, than to a race to which they do not necessarily owe anything.The second point to consider is that one race of humanity could survive fairly well whilst one gender would inevitably die out in one generation. This is simply undeniable and I do not see how, or why, I would require proof of this. In essence this point is short and sweet in that it simply takes racism and sexism to the extreme that one race wipes out all others, or one gender wipes out the other one. What is left? A sustainable human race in the former scenario whilst, in the latter, the last generation of humanity is left.In conclusion, it is firstly true to say that all human beings owe both genders for their existence but not all races, it is also true to say that racism taken to its extreme can end up with a sustainable single-raced humanity whilst there is no sustainability in the extremes of sexism.Sources[1] http://www.biology.arizona.edu...
Judaism is more logical than Christianity.

Its also very nice to see a Christian who can defend his faith, as most Christians I have spoke to, can not, and their only defense is "John 3:16). Judaism The Promise of Abraham Well many Jews in the Western World have no desire to make Aliyah (immigration) to Israel,may Jews in other countries do. All Jews returning from Israel is what the Messiah will do [1]. The Masiach will restore the borders of Israel to the traditional borders which G-d gave to Abraham. Thus the Masiach will fulfill the Promise of Abraham. The Law of Moses with the Temple Many Jews can still trace their ancestry to Aaron and still prepare for the Priestly duties [2]. My opponent is right in saying the Bible says nothing of the Law lasting in some form, it says that the Law would last forever, but the Talmud has this issue covered. We still keep Kosher, we still keep Shabbat. Even though the majority of Israelis are secular, many Ultra-Orthodox leaders would like to establish a Jewish theocracy in the Land of Israel, though this is far from happening any time soon. It is also important to note that Christian theology also says that the Temple will be rebuilt in the end times [3]. Throne of DavidCon states that many historians doubt King David was a real person. This creates a logical problem in both Judaism and Christianity. Roughly 250,000 can in fact trace their ancestry through David [4]. Jews do not deny Jesus was a real man (at least most Jews don't) or that he was a descendant of David, Judaism denies that he was the Messiah. Just as Jesus could trace his ancestry to David, so can modern Jews. Also, if my opposing would say King David never existed, that would pose a major problem with Jesus being a descendant of King David. Sin and Exile My opponent makes good points, the Law did not stop us from sinning, in the same way making robbing a bank does not stop someone from robbing it. My opponent is also right in saying we lost our Homeland because of our sin, but the Torah also states that we will be returned. By denying the Jews will be returned to their Homeland it is denying the words of the Prophets. Conclusion While Modern Judaism is not what it use to be, my opponent is correct in this manner. Judaism is still Judaism though. It is still the religion of Israel. As I stated earlier, all religions contain flaws. Christianity Jesus and other False Messiahs My opponent states that Bar Koba is no longer followed. This is simply not true. Bar Koba still have a movement behind him [5]. A small movement but still one. I will end this round with this, allowing others to look at the past rounds and make a choice.
Judaism is more logical than Christianity.

Judaism, being based on the original books of the Bible (Torah/Old Testament) is more logical than Christianity. Based on Christianity breaking the Laws set forth in the Old Testament. Christianity holds that Jesus was the Messiah predicted by the Prophets of Israel, even though he failed in the mission the Prophets set forth. Christianity than set forth the idea of a second coming which is mentioned no where in the Old Testament, and is just based on the failed hopes of the early followers of Jesus. Judaism is more logical in it followers the original texts, and no what man added.
should we restrict the use of cigarettes and alcohol in media commercials and films

come on man.. kids under the age of 15 is not mature as you think...how could a small kid gather info from other places.. like when travelling...they have their parents controlling them but i hvanet seen many parents looking cartoons with their children to check weather its appropriate or not. they stay under the assumption that cartoons and kids stories are appropriate for them... yeah i believe that they can get info from other sources too but if we ban those pathetic advertisements wont it do greater good i respect your opinions but i still stay under the fact that "we should restrict the use of cigarettes and alcohol in media commercials and films" Thank You