BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Violence is a neccesity

I meant violence was necessary for humans to exist, and, actually, come to think of it, everything to exist, now and forever. I have no problem debating this stance, even though it was not my original intention. This is because innumerable food chains would be broken without violence. Though this may sound absolutely insane at first glance, it actually makes a lot of sense if one looks at it closely enough. Without violence, here is a list of animals and plants that would not exist: Mosquitoes (they suck the blood of humans for nutrients) Venus fly traps Lions Wolves Sharks All other carnivores That being said: Con's rebuttal to my first contention is extremely misguided. It is true that social norms are not always based on logic, but the amount of death that would result from the lack of arrests because of legislation preventing drug dealing would probably be at least tens of thousands per year. Hard drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth are extremely dangerous, and if there was no motivation to not traffic drugs like these, more people would do it. Con's rebuttal to my second contention is also very misguided. First of all, he/she implies that drug dealing is a victimless crime by stating that, "Prisoners are there for either two reasons: one, they committed a victimless crime such as drug trafficking, or they committed a violent crime.", and I negated this assumption in my first counter rebuttal. Second of all, it doesn't matter if what a victim is doing is necessary to save another life, it doesn't change the fact that a murderer destroys the life of the victim. Self defense is justified because killing another person is justified if the purpose of doing so is to save your life, an thus the action is necessary for life. However, killing another person if the action is not needed to save life destroys a life without saving one, so your principle does not apply in this situation. If what you mean is that police should not arrest a murderer because the action of murder has already been completed, then you are insane. I obviously don't think you mean this, however. Note: My opponent didn't refute my second contention, but since they want to debate whether violence is neccasary for life, it may not apply here. Or he/she might do this in the second round. Back to Con.
Violence is a neccesity

Thanks for the debate. This should be interesting. Contention The most important word in this debate's resolution is "necessity". Based on the gravity of the subject matter, it seems clear to me that necessity in this context means "necessary for life". Note also that the definition of violence pertains to actions between humans. It does not include accidentally stepping on a bug or hunting animals for food. Based on that, I would contend that Pro's resolution is clarified as "violence between humans is necessary for life" I believe the answer is firmly "No" and it is Pro's job to prove that it is. Note: I will use the term "necessity principal" for this argument. I also contend that this resolution is broad in it's implied time dimension. If Pro had intended for this to mean "violence is necessary at this time", that should have been stated. Pro must show that violence is necessary for life now and forever in the future. Rebuttal Pro uses an example of a drug arrest to show how a non-violent activity necessitates violence. Based on the resolution's clarification above, this is a non sequitur. There is no reason that the arrest of this non-violent crime is even necessary. It is true that at the present time, drugs are illegal, but this is a societal norm. Humans would flourish on this planet without drug legislation. This should be obvious, especially since the first legislation in the United States did not occur until 1860 (1) Pro also states that society would plunge into anarchy, with prisoner breaks, etc. To understand why this does not help Pro's case, we need to stay focused on the "necessity principal". We also need to think not only of the hear and now, but to think back through the chain of violence that led to the current situation. Prisoners are there for either two reasons: one, they committed a victimless crime such as drug trafficking, or they committed a violent crime. I have already covered the example of victimless crime (drugs). But what of the violent criminals? Was their crime necessary for life? We can continue this thought experiment until we back up to the theoretical concept of the "first violator". If this first violators actions were not necessary for life, then the whole chain of violence breaks down. Any police actions were reactions to an event that was not necessary in the first place. This same principal can be applied to self defense. Based on these concepts, it is clear the violence is not necessary. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Violence is a neccesity

Is this the point where I'm supposed to relentlessly pound my opponent into submission?Ha ha. Nah. I'll just quickly address Pro's arguments in round 3:First, I already addressed the issue of the food chain under "Contention" in round 2. Remember, the resolution definition only includes humans.As far as the drug trafficking question, I'm not 100% sure what you are referring to, but I suspect it is this statement:"but the amount of death that would result from the lack of arrests because of legislation preventing drug dealing would probably be at least tens of thousands per year"That statement is a bit confusing, and I'm not sure it's in my interest to clarify this, but I will anyway. I assume the position here is that some non-violent activity (drug dealing) requires violence, or the net result would be many deaths from the increase in drug traffickers and drug users. However, I'll remind readers of Pro's resolution clarification at the top of round 2:"violence was necessary for humans to exist"So even if the above contention is true, Pro would need to argue that humans wouldn't exist under these conditions, which is highly unlikely. In short, I believe I have shown, and it seems Pro agrees, that the burden to show that ""violence between humans is necessary for life" has not been upheld.Thanks for the debate DATXDUDE!
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

1. The current unstable relations. The US-Saudi relationship is necessary to prevent terrorism. If we allow terrorism, it will result in extinction. 2. Democracy promotion for the Middle East is different than the Americans Sons of Liberty example. 3. Russia doesn't like the US promoting democracy in different areas of the world, so Russia will retaliate. 4. If you can prove that Saudi Arabia is considered stable, then yes, my DA contradicts my CP. However, I can just kick out of the CP. 5. Yes, that's the CP. I'm saying the Middle East isn't stable.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

CX Questions: 1. You speak a lot about Saudi Arabia. Which is more important: the US promoting democracy and women's rights in the Middle East or the current unstable relations? (source: http://www.goupstate.com...) 2. Hasn't democracy prevented terrorism in the past, such as the American Sons of Liberty transition to the peaceful democracy we know as the United States? 3. How is Russia even relevant in this debate about the Middle East, especially considering you only talk of economic sanctions, not democracy related? 4. Your CP talks about promoting democracy on stable nations only. Would Saudi Arabia be considered "stable", which is contrary to your case, and thus meaning that your D contradicts your CP? 5. You say that the Middle East is non-stable. Isn't a process to a stable, anti-terrorism area preferable?
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

1. While democracy ought to be promoted worldwide, however in today's debate, we are addressing the Middle East, which does not include North Africa. 2. No funding is required to "promote" anything. However it will be the responsibility of the President and the State Department to maintain the support of democracy in the Middle East. 3. No, it will not hurt relations with Middle Eastern nations, as the United States is not militarily requiring democratic leaders, but rather promoting democracy. 4. We should promote democracy worldwide in order to further civil liberties everywhere. Contentions 1 and 2 address the Middle East as that is what we are debating. 5. Promoting democracy includes verbally supporting democracy movements and leaders, providing more foreign aid in democratic nations, and encouraging foreign investment in these democratic nations.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

1. Do you defend North Africa as well? 2. Where does the plan get funding? If you don't specify the specific agency, I'll just assume normal means. 3. Would by promoting democracy through this way hurt any relations with countries in the Middle East with the US? 4. Why should we only promote democracy in the Middle East, if your logic in Contention 1 and 2 is correct? 5. Is there a specific way you're promoting democracy? Ex. Schools, Disengagement?
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East.

If you've already gone against me, don't accept this challenge. This is an LD debate, please do not accept if you can't debate LD. This round will also include DA's, CP's, T shells, and K's, so don't accept either if you don't know what those are. The second part of round 1 will be the 1AC. The first part of round 2 will be the first CX time. Max 5 questions, not including clarification questions, and if you don't agree with that, add in what you feel should be the proper amount of questions at the end of the 1AC. The second part of round 2 will be the answers to those CX questions. The first part of round 3 will be the 1NC. The second part of round 3 will be the CX questions. Again, 5 questions max. The first part of round 4 will be the answers to those CX questions. The second part of round 4 will be the 1AR. The first part of round 5 will be the 2NR. The second part of round 5 will be the 2AR. When placing cards, write out the tag and cite as usual, but when placing the actual cards, just type in what you would say if you were in a real LD debate. If there's any questions, comment. Good luck to my opponent.
Space exploration should be banned

Its quite unfortunate that there is such a growing stigma attached to the motion at hand..to start with, my stand in this argument is this' since there are other pressing needs which need to be solved other than this space exploration which endangers life, then it should be banned..to start with, i would like to expose the weakness of side opposition..you seem to be wise in your logic but weak in presenting it. I accept with psychological calmness that astronomers do go for physical training and various test before embarking in on any journey to the space but I beg to disagree that the various test they do engage in protects them.NASA has proven that over 50astronauts have died in cause of exploring the space and even the first man on space Gagarin equally died, my question then is this, this people that died, didn't they go for physical training and various test as you rightly put it in your first outing? You equally said when presenting your argument that space exploration brings about vast knowledge and we can know about our own planet and outer space but the question again is this, what knowledge? Is it to know if there is life there? It has been proven that the only thing there is dead amoeba and it is even because of this space exploration that we are facing some dangers like this falling stones..please don't misunderstand me or justerpose the motion, you said is from space exploration brought about satellites, phones, television but then, is it from space exploration or the knowledge of scientist? This space exploration if we do not know, is bad because almost every country want to go to the space why if I may ask? The answer is not far fetched because the punch newspaper on 15th may has proven that most of the countries that explore the space do it for their military strenght and not for the good of the people..take for instance, the nuclear weapon which was released in the second world war and killed almost a country was gotten from the knowledge from space exploration..so ladies and gentlemen, should we explore the space and endanger our lives? Should we explore the space so that if in future we have any problem we would be killed in just a seconds? Indeed this space exploration is a man slaying refrectory and should be banned for good
Space exploration should be banned

I accept the challenge. I'll begin this round by replying to my opponent's opening. Why endanger our lives on things that will not benefit us, or even the society at large? By saying our I assume you mean Astronauts. I'd like to say Astronauts do not endanger their life but take a risk while exploring space and they have spent years of their life in training and should pass physical fitness test and various other tough exams before they qualify for to be sent in outer space. Space Exploration is done for scientific purposes and provides vast knowledge about space and other outer planets. It is also used in studying outer space environments and study of meteoroids, asteroids etc which may effect Earth. Space Exploration also includes building of Artificial Satellites which is far beyond essential for every country and its people in the world as T.V broadcast, Environmental forecast, use of mobile phones etc is related to Artificial Satellites and immensely benefit the society as whole. Thus Space Exploration is not just waste of time,energy and money. It's need is vast and exploring Space gives knowledge about our Galaxy and Universe as whole. It also has its need for earth in many other ways such as the uses of Artificial Satellites. Thus we cannot just ban Space Exploration.
Jack Bauer is Superior to Jason Bourne

I would like to argue the topic: Jack Bauer is Superior to Jason Bourne (or David Webb). This debate will be purely for fun and seeing as both are fictional characters, we will not be using fact based evidence that doesn't come from either the T. V. show, o the movie. The intention of this debate will be for either side to prove that the character they are arguing for is better or superior to the other character for any reasons whatsoever. Superior can mean anything, from "Which guy is cooler" to "Which guy would win in a fight" or to "Which one has more resources, and better accomplishes what they want. So basically there is alot of leeway that both debaters can argue with in this debate. This debate is intended purely for fun, and I hope that my opponent and the viewers have fun with this debate. For those of you who don't know either of these characters, Jack Bauer is a fictional character for a T. V. Show called '24', which started back in 2001, played by actor Kiefer Sutherland. Jason bourne (David Webb) is from a book called 'The Bourne Identity' made in 1980, which then was made into a film in 2002, played by famous actor Matt Damon. Both characters are deeply intelligent, and have to deal with specific constant strenuous activities in order to complete dangerous goals.
Could you drop a raw egg 3 feet without breaking the shell and no using anything to cushion the fall

Because the Burden of proof lies on the side of the AFF, I'll merely explain why it would break. An egg is defined as ; animal reproductive body consisting of an ovum or embryo together with nutritive and protective envelopes; especially the thin-shelled reproductive body laid by e. g. female birds. wordnetweb. princeton. edu/perl/webwn The resolved assumes that there is nothing but the egg itself, and the ground. No other materials may be used. Nothing can be used to cushion the fall ; this includes special types of terrain (pillows, high grass, etc), or anything to cushion wind resistance (parachutes, etc). Precase obs ; The egg cannot fall 3 feet of pure air ;because gravity exists, using this as an argument fails to meet the resolution, ". .no using ANYTHING to CUSHION THE FALL. " You could not drop a raw egg 3 feet without breaking the shell. Eggs must be fragile so the chick can break out of the egg ; because a chick is weak, the egg shell must be weaker.
Could you drop a raw egg 3 feet without breaking the shell and no using anything to cushion the fall

opponent dropped precase observation ; it flows on. With the precase observation, falling 3 feet through air is CONSIDERED A CUSHION TO THE FALL. Opponent failed to refute any points ; my case flows on. I have shown that by dropping an egg 3 feet, it will indeed break. Key voting issues are obvious ; PRO drops all CON arguments, and bases argument in contradiction to the precase observation, which went through uncontested. (Never let anything intimidate you in debate! ! Glad to debate ya, mate) Because my opponent failed to refute my argument, nor address the precase observation, his argument is nullified.
Could you drop a raw egg 3 feet without breaking the shell and no using anything to cushion the fall

Hello Con! First of all, this is a riddle. The egg can fall 3 feet of pure air. If you drop the egg from 4 feet, the egg will fall 3 feet without breaking. Therefore, the egg can fall 3 feet of pure air. I rest my case. (To Con, you said that I shouldn't be intimidated by the topic, so I took your word for it. )
Flat Earth

where do i begin?? i guess we will start with space agency fails, just to set the stage and help people understand that we are being lied to and given false images and footage... the fact that we have no real picture of earth other than the apollo missions (which have been photo shopped and Photoshop detecting software can prove that...) NASA actually posted a picture from "mars" and there was a crab in the background. LOL ... crabs on mars?? how about the Bubbles coming up from the space suit during supposed authentic "space walks" there is water in space?? or ISS footage where the people are wearing harnesses, or have their hair gelled up to seem like its floating... imagine what kind of magical CGI work could be done on a 15 billion dollar budget?? can you imagine George Lucas with that kind of budget?? ok now on to some science... the fact that we can see sky lines and objects from 50+ miles away is 100% proof the earth is flat... using Pythagorean theorem and spherical trigonometry the curve of a ball 24,950 miles in circumference would be 8 inches^ per mile so at 50 miles away the equation would look like 50x50=2500, 2500x8=20000, then you divide 20,000 by 12 to get feet from inches... and the curvature is 1667 feet of curvature... it just doesnt exist. no curve, no ball, also when gainign elevation, rising up above earth, the horizon will ALWAYS rise to eye level, and thats not possible on a sphere, the horizon would drop the higher you went... scaled computer programs have proved this... 3 expriemnt go hand in hand in proving the earth doesnt spin and light does in fact travel through a medium called the Aether... these 3 experiments are MIchelson-Morely, Sagnacs, and Aireys Failure .... if you are un familiar, go look into those and we will discuss in the next round... here is what really blows my mind i have a NASA linear aircraft model derivative document... you would be MIND BLOWN to see what it says on the last page... ill show you http://www.nasa.gov... ... scroll all the way down to the last page... you will see in clear english that every linear aircraft NASA designs is designed for use on a FLAT, NON-ROTATING EARTH ... im drawing blanks, im sure you have more points to make that i can elaborate on, looking forward to your response
1+1=2 (Math)

Wow.... congratulations! You can use Google! For all voters, this debater just went to Google, typed in "3 men and a hotel" and took the second link. then he just COPY AND PASTED IT DIRECTLY. He doesn't know math! He knows Google though. He is a disgrace to mathematicians, this website and debaters everywhere. Now, I can see if he at least MENTIONED the site he used: http://www.classbrain.com... But nope, not a single citation or mentioning... Well, it is obvious that I have no refutations other than that for plagiarism, but I'll try. Yes, if you do the problem backwards, it works... slightly. But that is still cheating! for example, when you do a maze, if you start at the end and go backwards it is as easy as pie, you cannot start out with the correct answer ad go backwards if it is a math PROBLEM, that is because you, technically, shouldn't know the answer yet. With the answer already there, it is possible through trial and error to do anything correctly. Ha, you know what? He didn't even put ONE WORD THAT WAS HIS OWN on that entire post, I just realized that, I thought he would at least try to mask his plagiarism somehow... but nah. So in cessation, please, I urge a positive vote on this........ debate, if you could even call it that. Thank you, and good night!!! As a joke read this: New York (CNN). At John F. Kennedy International Airport today, a high school mathematics teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a compass, a protractor and a graphical calculator. According to law enforcement officials, he is believed to have ties to the Al-Gebra network. He will be charged with carrying weapons of math instruction. It was later discovered that he taught the students to solve their problem with the help of radicals! Math is a joke! VOTE CON!!!
1+1=2 (Math)

Ok it actually wasnï¿½?Tt as much a math problem, as a logic and semantics problem. It took me a few minutes to spot the logical fallacy in this problem. I knew it was there, but it was difficult to spot nonetheless. This is a semantic fallacy. The premise is false, which you can see when you work the equation backwards. The men do pay a total of $9.00 each (total of $27.00) for the room, but only after you add in the amount the concierge took. They paid $25 dollars for the room and the concierge took $2 dollars without their knowledge. ($25 2 = $27.00). At this point the only thing to add back in to get to the original $30.00 is the $3 the men received as a refund. ($27 $3 = $30) Or to simply it further: There is a misdirect in the problem when it says that when you do the math each man paid $9 each for the room, plus $2 'tip'. They don't. They pay a combined price of $25.00 plus the $2 'tip'. The problem sets up a set of facts: * $30.00 was originally given to the hotel manager * Correct price of the room (including discount recieved) = $25 * Each man receives $1 dollar refund = $3 * The concierge takes $2 'tip' * $25 for room $2 'tip' = $27 * $30 - $27 = $3 which is how much the men receive back as a refund. Those are the facts. Once you separate those out, you can see the misdirect in the puzzle. There isn't a dollar discrepancy as listed, all the money is accounted for. Wording things in misleading ways is what allows swindlers to make a living. By wording it the way they have in the problem, you actually add in the $2.00 to the owner twice, and you donï¿½?Tt add in the $3.00 rebate to the men at all, which leaves you short $1.00.