BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
John Kasich (PRO) VS Donald Trump (CON)

"My candidate won the election for the Republican party nominee. Yours fell way short." Kasich lost because of inadequate media coverage compared to Trump, having to split the anti-Trump vote with Cruz, and many other variables, none of which mean he was worse than Trump. In fact, Kasich has a much higher net favorability. To say that winning makes someone a better candidate is far from true. "John Kasich did not pledge to end same-sex marriage." I never said he did. Here's what I did say: "Kasich opposes same-sex marriage... he will not do anything to change or abolish [it]." My opponent clearly misinterpreted my argument. Statistics on Illegal Immigrants I understand what you're saying - and so does Kasich. Here's one of his quotes: "If they've been law abiding over a period of time they ought to be legalized and ought to be able to stay here. If you have violated the law, we're going to ship you out." Furthermore, all law-abiding illegals, meaning no crime other than illegal immigration, will pay a fine [1]. "You admit you didn't support his view on that [abortion and two of his actions] which contradicts your stance." Yet you did not refute anything in my anti-Trump contention. I responded to your argument, yet you did not completely respond to mine. "You then go on to agree with me on the majority of my claims." I agreed with two of the five anti-Kasich points and your abortion argument. I sided 100% with Kasich on immigration. You did not completely respond to my argument, so I should be the one assuming that you agree with the majority of my claims. Conclusion My opponent left my favorability argument untouched, except for saying that Trump won the election and therefore is better than Kasich (which is not true). My opponent also only responded to part of my appealing to voters argument. The most surprising argument my opponent didn't respond to is my entire anti-Trump contention. If they don't bring it up this round, it would seem as though they agree with me. I thank my opponent for this debate. :) SOURCES [1] http://www.ontheissues.org...
John Kasich (PRO) VS Donald Trump (CON)

Rebuttal to Case 1: My candidate won the election for the Republican party nominee. Yours fell way short. Rebuttal to Case 2: He did not win the election. John Kasich did not pledge to end same-sex marriage. Some statistics about illegal aliens: "75 percent of those on the most wanted criminals list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens. "One quarter of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals, as are more than 40 percent of all inmates in Arizona and 48 percent in New Mexico jails. "Over 53 percent of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens. "63 percent of cited drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that number, 97 percent are illegal aliens. 66 percent of cited drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66 percent, 98 percent are illegal aliens" (1) These people are more than willing to commit crime. They are more than willing to violate the law. These people who violate the law by coming here illegally are more than willing to break other laws. We should not let them back in. This is another reason why Kasich is a fool. You admit you didn't support his view on that which contradicts your stance. You then go on to agree with me on the majority of my claims. 1. http://www.constitutionparty.com...
John Kasich (PRO) VS Donald Trump (CON)

1. Immigration My opponent provides one universal (made by Trump) definition of 'immigration reform' without bringing up how it applies to Kasich's plan and how Kasich's plan compares to that of Trump. By this definition, Kasich surely must be in favor of "amnesty, cheap labor, and open borders" because he is serving "the corporate patrons who run both parties. " If he's not, than my opponent is providing false information. Here is Kasich's immigration plan (in his words): "I'm for sealing the border, I'm for a guest worker program. People can come in, work, and go back home. We haven't closed the border because special interests, I believe, blocked it. We have 11 and a half million people here. If they have not committed a crime since they've been here, make them pay a fine. " [1]. In other words, Kasich: -exposed the "corporate patrons" / special interests behind traditional immigration reform [1]. -wants to close the border, not open it [1]. -supports, but does not like, pathway to citizenship (Reagan was the same way). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Trump campaign website does not list the deportation of all illegal immigrants and Trump has not spoken of it recently, meaning that perhaps he is abandoning it [1] [2]. -supports a "reasonable guest worker program so people can come in and out, that lawbreakers go to prison or are deported". He also supports a limit on the amount of people that can come here legally [1]. In other words, Kasich's immigration reform does not completely match up and is more complex than the definition my opponent has provided. I agree with Kasich that we should improve our border fence and border security rather than build a billion-dollar wall, make Mexico pay for it, and deport 11.5 million illegal immigrants. I agree with you that there are ways to make Mexico pay for a wall, but Kasich's immigration stance is far superior and far less costly than that of Trump. 2. Kasich is a "Fool" 1. My opponent brings up S. B 5, which sounds really intimidating at first (almost like something out of Terminator if you've ever watched it). S. B. 5, or Senate Bill 5, spawned so many rumors and misconceptions, and I think my opponent might be buying into them. The bill was really about promoting the rights of business owners and limiting bargaining abilities of public workers, safety forces, and educational workers. I don't 100% support it, but I can see why Kasich and other conservatives did. Taking the affirmative side of this bill does not make Kasich a "fool" [3]. 2. He's concerned about raising the minimum wage because it will harm small businesses and most likely lead to an increase in unemployment. Choosing the lesser of two evils does not make Kasich a "fool". 3. I agree that Kasich messed up there. 4. I agree that he messed up there as well. 5. Also because it would harm small businesses. Not a "fool" there. 6. (abortion) I agree with you there. Kasich may have gotten some things wrong, as everyone does, but compared to Trump, Kasich is an angel. SOURCES [1] . http://www.ontheissues.org... [2] . https://www.donaldjtrump.com... [3] . http://www.cleveland.com...
Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey

While fighting might not be too different from the natural physicality of hockey, the way it is presented and glorified within the sport does propose an ethical dilemma. A body check into the boards is violent but it is not staged the same way as a fight is. When the helmets and gloves come off for a fight, fans of all ages see a part of the game that no longer belongs in today's society. Big hits will always happen in sports, whether it be in hockey, football, lacrosse, etc., but that should be the extent of glorified physicality. Hockey and its designated enforcers leave a negative impression on youth fans and players who look to emulate professional athletes. Rather than working to become a talented hockey player, some kids would rather become the guy who goes for "big hits" and is known for their physical play rather than developing useful skills within the sport. This influence of violence does bring up ethical concerns, as it changes the way youth players see and play the game. Physical violence is not an appropriate response to conflict, even within a physical sport. The concept of sportsmanship and playing the game the "right way" is put in danger by giving fighting a home in the sport of hockey.
Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey

While the evidence concerning head trauma is troubling, it exists within the context of an already violent sport. An article published in WIRED magazine commented in April; "as of this writing, no fewer than 158 National Hockey League players " slightly more than one of every five in the league " are injured." These are substantial numbers and they would not be significantly diminished by the abolition of fighting. The players on the ice know the risk they assume when they go out and play the sport, and in the absence of any complaints or activism on the part of the players to abolish fighting, I don't see how it could make the game substantially safer. I do not see any ethical considerations that distinguish fighting from any other dangerous component of hockey. Unless it can be demonstrated to be uniquely harmful in a way distinct from the dangers of stray shots, eye-gouging hihi sticks, or knee-shattering collisions, then I maintain that it is nonsensical to ban fighting in hockey.
Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey

Players and fans may prefer to retain fighting as a permissible component of the sport, however recent findings show that this is not best for the players' health. Fighting in hockey often results in the removal of either one or both players' helmets and gloves, resulting in an exchange of blows to the head. Players wear so much protective equipment that fights become more about punches to the head rather than a general pain to the body. This emphasis on head shots can result in an increased amount of concussions. Neurosurgeon Charles H. Tator suggests that 10% of concussions in hockey are the result of fighting rather than actual game play. This is an easily preventable source of concussions and player harm that has no place in the sport. The long term effects of concussions have become increasingly relevant as more former athletes, particularly professional football players, have been experiencing mental health issues as their careers and lives progress. The effects of concussions are just now becoming better understood by researchers, but it is becoming evident that athletes' brains are being severely affected by these traumatic injuries. Fighting also raises a concern about the recent painkiller epidemic in which athletes are being addicted to their prescribed medications, negatively affecting them even beyond the duration of their injury.
Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey

While fines may be an effective way for the NBA to hold its players accountable, that is largely because there is no other historical avenue for conflict resolution in the NBA. As mentioned previously, fighting in hockey has been an integral aspect of the sport since the formation of the National Hockey League. Furthermore, it is not as if these fights are completely unregulated. In the 1980's there was an average of 1 fight per NHL (100%). As a response to this, the League implemented new rules governing fighting. These rules still allowed fights to take place, they just assigned a 2-5 minute penalty to the players involved. This penalty causes players to be judicious about when they choose to fight. This is similar to the penalty system in many sports: soccer players shown to be more judicious about the use of aggressive plays after they have already received a yellow card, NBA athletes are more cautious about play after they have received 3 fouls, etc. Additionally, if the concern about fighting is motivated by a concern for the players, then the opinions of these players should be considered. A survey of NHL players conducted in 2012 asked them whether or not they believed fighting should remain a practice in the NHL, 98% of them responded that it should be. This demonstrates that the players involved, who are cognizant of the risks associated with the activity, still see a value in it and would like it to remain.
Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey

Fighting in hockey, and in sports in general, should not be permissible for any reason. While fighting does have a historic place in the way hockey is played and is often a notable reason why people watch hockey in the first place, it should not be allowed moving forward. Player safety should be at the forefront of sports, and by allowing fighting in hockey, the sport is openly showing its disregard for such safety. Hockey leagues do not need players to police each other and hold each other accountable, that's what referees and league punishments are for. Basketball is a relatively physical sport as well, however the NBA generally does a good job of enforcing appropriate fines and penalties to discourage excessive violence on the court. These monetary fines, game suspensions, and other punishments all hold players accountable without relying on the players to do it themselves. Hockey is one of the very few sports where it is seen as acceptable to have designated players that serve no role other than to protect the team's talented star players from getting hurt in a fight - a sign that the sport needs to change its standards to reduce violence among its players. Cheap shots will always occur in sports, however it is better to address those dirty plays with real-life punishments that affect the player's ability to participate and make financial gains, rather than by putting them in a glass box for a few minutes.
Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey

Fighting in hockey has always existed as a defining feature of the sport, and it has been accommodated in the rules for the NHL since the league's establishment in 1917. The practice of fighting in NHL games should be protected because it is not simply an exercise of unchecked aggression, but rather a tool to be used to hold players accountable for their actions. With 12 players on the rink at once and only 3 officials to regulate them, players often get away illegal/dangerous checks. In the absence of consistent regulation, fighting in hockey allows for the players to police one another. The knowledge that a dirty play or a cheap shot will likely result in retaliation offers an effective deterrent against players engaging in these potentially harmful activities. While fighting admittedly introduces a risk for injury, the severity of this injury pales in comparison to the potential injuries one might sustain from an illegal check.
Stop drawing a line between straights and gays, when doesn't exist.

1. Define drawing a line. 2. Religion is not about hate and discrimination. Christianity teaches that Christians should love all people and that God does not hate sinners, just sins. 3. From what I gather, there is a line. There is a line between republicans and democrats, a line between Christians and Atheists, and between gay people and straight people. As long as people are different, society would look at them differently. I will leave the rest of my argument for later for a response to my opponent.
Goku vs Superman Fight to the Death

Well Goku is equally if not stronger than Superman. And every time Goku does get defeated he only comes back stronger and usually unlocks another level of power that would greatly exceed Superman and that is if he even needs to do that. Goku can destroy planets just by powering up too fast and his Kamehameha at full power, even if it is not magic, could still greatly damage Superman. I am also speaking of course outside of the new Dragonball Z: Battle of the Gods movie. In this movie Goku becomes a Super Saiyan God, in this form he could destroy Superman no problem. And Goku would also have his friends there, Vegeta of which is almost as strong as Goku, who would give him their energy if needed.
Goku vs Superman Fight to the Death

Well let us begin with the fact that Superman has very little weaknesses. He has the well known kryptonite, a red sun (in which this battle takes place under a yellow sun), and magic. In Dragon Ball Z it is made clear that the ki used to power Goku and most of the characters is NOT magic, ki is reliant on one's physical capabilities while magic is not (I.E. babidi). Superman can withstand any ki based move with no problem given his powerful molecular structure protecting him from blasts with the equivalent of 15 exploding suns. Superman has a wide range of abilities including super strength, heat vision, flight, ice breath, super speed, super endurance, and many others that eclipse Goku's abilities. Superman can fight at 10x the speed of light which Goku has never done or come close to doing. He can become powerful enough to effortlessly move planets like earth and his heat vision can become powerful enough to heat entire planets from 200,000 miles away. Goku in my opinion does not stand a chance in this fight. I look forward to seeing my opponents arguments. Sources and images: http://static.comicvine.com... http://static.comicvine.com... http://i49.tinypic.com...
Goku vs Superman Fight to the Death

I would like to revisit a topic that you began earlier but never really got the chance to have a detailed debate about. For this debate I will be arguing that Superman would in fact defeat Goku in a one on one fight. This battle would take place on an empty planet free of life, with a yellow sun allowing Superman's powers, and all equipment would be allowed. This is a fight to the death. I look forward to your response. There will be 3 rounds the first being who would win, round two being why either party would win, and finally round three being the counter-arguments/evidence. Also please not that this is my first debate and I am very new to this system.
women make better politicians than men

This has been a very unusual debate. As Con, I would normally have to refute my opponent's arguments, but since Pro never offered his/her own arguments, I have nothing to rebut. BURDEN OF PROOF Keeping in mind my opponent was the instigator, and is making the positive claim, he/she had the full burden of proof. Considering how Pro has made no original arguments, I've already won this debate. I really don't have to provide a negative case. But how fun would that be? NEGATIVE CASE Women don't know as much about politics as men do. An international study of 10,000 participants found women know 30% less about politics than men. [1] If men know more about politics than women, then obviously they make better politicians. SUMMARY OF DEBATE 1. Conduct: My opponent plagiarized, so I should be awarded this point. 2. S and G: Tie. 3. Arguments I'm the only one who made an argument of my own, so mine is better by default. 4. Sources I'm the only one who claims to have sources, so mine is more reliable. I deserve a six point vote. Sources: 1. http://www.theguardian.com...
women make better politicians than men

Woman have the feeling of motherhood & love towards the country. this feeling always gives them support in handling politics. Yes, it's true that as compared to men, less women are interested in politics. Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Sarojini Naidu, Pratibha Patil, Mayawati are all effective examples of women politician. Indira Gandhi held the country for 16 years which is not a less tenure. It means that women have the capacity to hold the country more nicely than man. So they are better leader and makes better politicians than men. First, as leading psychologists William James, William McDougall, and G. Stanley Hall claimed (1), "women have a special need and ability to protect and care for others". It means female worry and care about people, moreover, they are more responsible than men. So women-politicians can make decision that beneficial for others, help children and old people, also do things to improve the country. Secondly, according to Debra Burrell, a psychological social worker and regional training director of the Mars-Venus Institute in New York, most women of women managers tend to have more of a desire to build than a desire to win and also women are more willing to explore compromise and seek other people's opinions. (2) Women able to listen others and create world with out war, that means they can make better politicians and do things for sake of people. Third, as Carol Smith, the senior vice president and chief brand officer for the Elle Group, illustrates, female managers are more collaborative and democratic than male managers. Also, she claimed that women use a more positive approach by encouraging and urging others rather than a negative approach of scolding and reprimanding them. Also, women attend more to the individuals they work with, by mentoring them and taking their particular situations into account. (3) Moreover, the Daily Beast reports on a new study that shows female politicians are among the most productive and persuasive ones in the country. This research in the American Journal of Political Science is the first to compare the performance of male and female politicians. It shows women do a better job at securing pork for their home districts and shaping policy.(4) As an example, there are powerful women leaders all over the world serving effectively in their respective fields and most of them are politicians. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor is the best example. She heads Europe's most vibrant economy and is widely viewed as the de facto leader of the EU. She reigns supreme as the pre-eminent leader of the European Union. Her hold over the economic future of the eurozone (current GDP $17.9 trillion) was made crystal clear this year. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, fourth in line to the succession of the U.S. Presidency. As the world ambassador of the largest single economy on earth, Clinton has advanced U.S. interests and policies overseas while pushing women"s issues, development and education to the top of the foreign policy agenda. (5) These evidences prove that women make better politicians than men.
Capital Punishment

Thanks for the deabate, Kiss. I will make my opening statement to further clarify my standing of the resolution: "Capital punishment should NOT be outlawed." For the reasons and contentions below, my standing in Affirmation of the resolution should be made apparent and unequivical: 1) Though the deed of killing is never a glorious one, we must look at the long term standards if we do not. We are already in an economic recession (the worst since the Great Depression) and jails are overflowing with a mounting crime rate. If we do not execute, the population of the jail cells does not go down for those with life imprisionment because the state does not have a death penalty. Taxpayers pay the remainder of that crimal's life. 2) There are certain treasonists who leak government secrets that must be put to death. If they do not, they could be broken out of jail and much more harm done. Because the documents and information in this are classified, I can not provide or cite a source. However, I can grant the example of the culprits who leaked the information on the A-bomb. For the reasons of a domestic uprising and ensuring our nation's security as a whole without compromising the integrity of our nation, it is permissable, legally and morally, to enable capital punishment.
Education is stealing constitutional rights

They aren't alleviating us from our rights, I just graduated so it's easier for me to speak, but freedom of speech is restricted because a public institution can't be connected to drugs, profanity, etc. Since the parents pay the bills, it's their call. In regards to restricting religion, they have two choices...accommodate all (expensive) or accommodate none (free) I don't approve of the US school system, but it's better than nothing, if you feel suppressed then get involved outside of school.