BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You slice the Cake, I pick the first piece.

I am Pro on the resolution. Life, you see, in the context of philosophy, that is, a human life, is supposed to demand a special reverence, of a sort not due to the sort of life biologists talk about. That reverence, however, must only be given to that which is due it, and one must be clear about the quality that deserves such relevance- the quality of a free, reasoning mind, of volitional consciousness. Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value. "Rights," or proper social limits, arise from the requirements of life for those who have developed such minds- that is, from the syllogisms arising from the choice to live and the general facts of reality. You see, human beings need to use their mind without barrier to produce the various things they need, and thus need other such beings to refrain from creating such barriers to use of their mind and application to action. Since this is a reciprocal need, it is in each party's own self interest that they each refrain from violating it unless in retaliation to the other violating it, that is, so long as the other person's interfering with your need is a necessary condition of your violation of theirs, and vice versa, a RIGHT is established that you each possess-knowledge of how to protect yourself. This particular one, protection from barriers to use of the mind, is known as the right of liberty. A related one, protection from barriers to enjoyment of the product thereof, is known as the right of property. The source of these, at base, is the reciprocal need to not have actions taken toward your own destruction, this is known as the right to life. Many people do not respect this reciprocity clause-- they do not respect the rights of others. As such, they have none themselves, the protection of value is not logically related to the protection of their life from interference, since they'll be interfering in others' lives either way. When this happens, the best available solution for the protection of values (that is, the most moral solution) is the elimination of those sorts of people-- the elimination of those who would attack your rights.
The Spurs will win a championship before Tim Duncan retires

Thank you for instigating this debate. The San Antonio Spurs will not win a championship for numerous reasons: 1: The rise of the Los Angeles Clippers The Los Angeles Clippers got better over the offseason, as they got Doc Rivers and Eric Bledsoe. According to many basketball analysts, this now puts them as the favorite to win the Western Conference, the division the Spurs are in 2: The rise of the Indiana Pacers: The Indiana Pacers are a team that made the eastern conference finals last year, before losing to the eventual champion Miami Heat. The Pacers have a roster filled with talent that includes Paul George, Roy Hibbert, and David West. Many analysts have them as one of the favorites to win the NBA finals 3: The Miami Heat: The Miami Heat are the team the San Antonio Spurs lost to in the NBA finals last year. This year, they got even better by signing Greg Oden, the former number one pick in the 2007 NBA Draft. They also have arguably, the best player in the NBA right now in Lebron James. I await my opponent's opening arguments. http://www.sportingnews.com... http://espn.go.com...
The world needs to take measure to pressure North Korea for change.

Do you mean debating one topic at a time, or all of the topics in the same statement? For my first statement, I'm going to focus on one particular aspect of the "change" you suggested; the military situation of North Korea. In October 2006, after the DPRK conducted a nuclear test, the United Nations' Security Council imposed sanctions against the DPRK. Backed by the United States, the UN openly condemned North Korea's nuclear program. These sanctions restricted military and technological goods within North Korea, as well as a few financial restrictions. Then, in December 2012, North Korea launched a rocket and satellite into orbit, in which the Security Council followed by tightening the sanctions already in place. Shortly thereafter, in February 2013, North Korea conducted a third nuclear test, which led to the Security Council toughening the sanctions even more so. Judging by the erratic behavior of the government of North Korea and the threats that were made since the beginning of March, (and the resulting sanctions by the Security Council), the DPRK clearly felt threatened by the US, South Korea, and the UN, to the point of declaring war on South Korea on March 29th 2013. The pressure being put on the Korean nation clearly hasn't benefited either side. Kim Jong-un is making these threats because Kim "needs to show he has the guts. The best way to do that is to use the military might that he commands," said Lee Yoon-gyu, who is a North Korea expert at Korea National Defence University in Seoul. (Quoted from BBC) So, to summarize, the world HAS been putting pressure on NK for change in their military for the past seven years, yet there's been absolutely no benefits whatsoever. These sanctions are partly to blame for the North Korean's declaration of war on South Korea, and the latest threat by North Korea of an "all out nuclear war", which, obviously, the international community wants to avoid.
The world needs to take measure to pressure North Korea for change.

The world needs to take measure to pressure North Korea for change.Full Resolution: The world needs to take measure to pressure North Korea for change.BoP is shared. Definitions:North Korea:The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, commonly called North Korea, is a country in East Asia, in the northern half of the Korean Peninsula.World: In this case and in this debate all of the countries compromising of the United Nations.Measure: A plan or course of action taken to achieve a particular purposePressure: Attempt to persuade or coerce (someone) into doing somethingChange: Make or become differentAreas for change: (only) nothing else than these areas should be talk about.1. Economically2. Politically3. Socially4. MilitarilyRules1. The first round is for acceptance and appreciation. (only) 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. All resoultion, definitions, rules, and structures are as stated.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Economically (only)Round 3: Politically (only)Round 4. Socially (only)Round 5: Militarily (only)
organized religion

You can't say that all you see is man made lies without any proof. But saying it like that does sound pretty convincing but its just not enough. The main religions aren't just different names of chapters in the same book. Where did you get your sources? If I were to name something good about it, about Christianity in specific, I would say that your allowed by God to have a personal relationship with him, be saved and have a purpose in your life. Who wants to go on with life not knowing why your here? Yes, I have briefly read about other religions. I'm wondering if you have because your saying there pretty much all the same. Is that all you have on contrary of the major religions, or more specifically Christianity, the one i believe? If not, I would love to see them.
organized religion

Organized religion huh? What good has come of it? Name anything good about it because all I see are man made lies which results in war, greed of money, child molestation and so many more. For those of you that follow any organized religion have you ever briefly read up on any other religion? If not then I strongly urge you to do some homework before relying because ALL THE MAIN RELIGIONS ARE THE SAME PLOT JUST DIFFERENT NAMES OF CHAPTERS IN THE SAME BOOK!!! The only god is that the energy and auras of the world beneath our feet and the soul within your body.
Paparazzi Should Be Illegal

My argument is that paparazzi infringe upon human rights. Though certain laws may not be against their actions, judgement and moral values are severely so. Hordes of them stand outside the houses of their targets with cameras and recorders, and capture them in distress or anxiety during their hardest moments. They then send these photos to a magazine or website for money, and the former then distributes these photos around the world! In what society is this acceptable? If you were going through a divorce, death, or any other trauma, then wouldn't you want a modicum of privacy? I'm sure you would; you would not want strangers snapping blinding lights in your face, interrogating you so they can get a "good shot". Thus, my argument is that, though law may not prohibit, morality certainly does.
Ridding of politcal parties

I argue politics itself is broken. Setting some artificial restriction on parties is like saying you can prevent government bailouts of Wall Street banks by outlawing financial firms in New York City. The root of the problem is the belief that we can have a system whereby we trust a minority to rule us with benevolence. The great majority of those who seek office will put their own interests ahead of those they rule. Think back to a time in school when you were placed into separate teams for some reason. There is automatically a tendency to "take sides" and to begin to look at the other group as different and your group as special. Your elected officials in Washington are in their own "group" which includes themselves and thousands of lobbyists. Unlike many people, I bear no ill will regarding this. It's simply human nature. There is no grand conspiracy (no matter what Alex Jones tells you). Regarding the two parties, I use a case in point to support my statements. In 1988 the Commission on Presidential Debates took over the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters. They proclaim the following: The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners In fact, the co-chairs of that commission are former chairs of the Republican National Committee and the Bill Clintons former press secretary and a Washington Lobbyist. This is typical of Washington, saying something like "I feel your pain. If you just elect me I will pass this legislation to help", then turning around and stabbing you in the back. And the beauty is they will find a way to do it while convincing you it's good to have knives pushed into your flesh. If you eliminate the two parties, will that eliminate the raw fraud, corruption (and in a couple cases physical abuse) perpetrated by the leaders of the democratic and republican election committees this year? It won't because it is the knowledge and philosophies of humans that is broken. Only knowledge will break the chain of evil emanating from political offices. And as long as that evil is running our education system, that may be difficult to accomplish.
Ridding of politcal parties

America's New Party System: Weakening Political Parties' Power (I do see your point of view but I thought I could exercise my knowledge a bit to help me in class so I hope you will challenge me back) I am in a college government course currently and I have recently finished studying about U.S. political parties and such. Recently political parties have been becoming weaker due to the fact that elections are becoming more candidate based. There is also the fact that because the government plays a growing role in the social welfare of America the traditional duties political parties have enacted are no longer needed. Furthermore a two-party system provides American citizen's with limited choice in canidates (because let's face it, when did an independent party ever win?). When people find out what party a person associates themselves with , others will automatically judge that person and group that person with the party. People should be seen for their unique individual characteristics and thoughts not as a mash up of corrupt (or uncorrupt) policy makers. While I will acknowledge that political parties make voting easier (because one can simply choose the side they generally agree with) it takes away from the importance of doing detailed research. There has also been a notable rise in voters who "split-ticket" vote (or in other words choose a candidate from each side). Meaning that people are starting to see candidates for who they really are and not their parties.
Rape Is A Good Thing

Hey, and how are you! I'll gladly accept your challenge on rape. Rape is not having consensual sexual encounter that involves penetration which it can be forms of date rape, marital rape, and child molestation. Rape is never a good event for the both parties because the victim they'll get psychology and emotionally destroyed and for the offender they'll go to prison and be labeled a sex offender. Doen't matter is she wants to or not but you saying that she should just go along with the flow is downright ignorant and scary. "If a man wants to have sex with you forcefully and protectively; if you just let it happen, you will be alright (sometimes, its tough love)" Rape is the furthest thing from being protective, rape isn't protective at all. it should be consensual and smooth . Rape isn't a good thing in any situation
Rape Is A Good Thing

Rape is a good thing if you just let it happen. If a man wants to have sex with you forcefully and protectively; if you just let it happen, you will be alright (sometimes, its tough love) those are 2 wills for each other if you fight the rape, that is against the man's will if you don't fight it, you'll feel sexually delighted if a parent told you "you should be ashamed of yourself" the parent is against your will ignore people who say "you should be ashamed of yourself" those people are against your will, not the rapist and not yourself Rape Is A Good Thing - Lee Greenwood rape hurts if you fight it, look it up www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/02/09/rape-only-hurts-if-you-fight-it/
(Pro)Goku vs (Con)Green Lantern

Note my adversary has already FFed but lets continue a bit The Green Lantern is different than The Green Lanterns As we can see by the debate title, this is the Green Lantern as in singular or Harold "Hal" Jordan. In a solo fight my above argument stands In a fight where he took on all the green lanterns a simple spirit bomb to their planet would obliterate their entire race, and then goki could instant transmission back to earth. A spirit bomb has the power to destroy a planet so even in the context of fighting their entire race, goku could instant transmission above the planet and gather enough energy for a spirit bomb before they even knew he was there. Then flash back to earth before they knew what happened. In the fight in the context of this debate, Goku could flash over to Jordan within the blink of an eye and smash his ring and then one punch would end him for there There is no possible way the green lantern could beat goku in a fight. http://www.youtube.com...
(Pro)Goku vs (Con)Green Lantern

breif contentions Super Saiyan Super Saiyan 2 Super Saiyan 3 Super Saiyan 4 Through each stage goku gains a significant power boosts and has instant transmission. He also can move at the speed of light. With a simple move he could flash over to the green lantern take his ring and smash it, rendering the green lantern useless. A simple energy blast would suffice at that point and blow him to pieces Goku would win I accept my adversaries concession moving on
(Pro)Goku vs (Con)Green Lantern

Resolution - Goku Vs Green LanternThis is a shared BOP. Where I will defend that Goku could beat the Green Lantern and my adversary will defend that the Green Lantern could defeat GokuRoundsPro(1) Rules(2) Contentions(3) Contentions/Rebuttals/Closing StatementsCon (1) Contentions(2) Contentions/Rebuttals /Closing Statements(3) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing elseRules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon will result in a full 7 point loss due to my adversary having an extra round. This means that if any other words are typed besides the aforementioned ones, my adversary will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss. (2) 10k character limits. (3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff
backwardseden needs to get banned.

It isn't about growing thicker skin, It's about the principle. It's so funny how some of you people come to bat for backwardseden and d-ckriding him pretending as if he's never done anything wrong. You would think he's paying you for it. Sorry but I don't let people disrespect me. For every action there's a reaction. If you're rude to me, Then expect something to return. I don't take sh-t from people. I address situations I don't ignore them. I just said "If you don't agree with me and you want to take up for backwardseden, Then don't bother commenting. " yet you took this debate supporting him. How foolish. You can take your exit now.
backwardseden needs to get banned.

How it all started. debate. Org/debates/The-lord-our-god-is-NOT-one-lord-according-to-the-bible-therefore-everything-god-is-is-fraudulent/2/Go to that debate. It speaks for itself. Backwardseden is always rude and has poor conduct to everyone but he has met the wrong person and that person is me. He forfeited rest of the debate because he knows he was wrong. My "Does God Exist" debate. More fuel is added to the fire when backwardseden makes rude comments on my debate. He wrote a long comment, So I will just narrow it down and put some things that he mentioned:Basically saying things like how I'm a sore loser and that I've lost our debate (when I didn't) I was voted winner, Plus I didn't forfeit half of the debate, He did. "I am much better at this game than you ---ever--- will be. " "Just because you have no genuine friends or loved ones and you desperately crave attention, Negative attention that is"And other stupid things, Which I responded on this debate which I accepted on my other account: https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Toss-out-the-nonsensical-10-commandments-that-were-negative-And-lets-all-create-something-positive/2/Of course he will ignore it and will forfeit the rest of the debate like a wuss. Backwardseden always picks and chooses his battles. To put the cherry on top, He makes a debate after that mentioning my name, Saying I'm lying about my age and other lies about me, When I really am 22. (Almost 23)You want to keep this up then let's play this game because like I said I don't play when it comes to disrespect. Everyone, Report backwardseden. | https://www. Debate. Org/backwardseden/ If you support me, Thank you. If you don't, That's okay. If you don't agree with me and you want to take up for backwardseden, Then don't bother commenting. He's a rude f-ck on this site to everyone and no one says anything and they kiss his a-ss, Well I'm not doing that. I'm putting my foot down. Wanna make debate dragging my name, Then I'll do the same to you. Any additional questions then feel free to add and inbox me.
Is Donald Trump fit for the presidency of the United States of America

I will accept your challenge, However, First I will make some stipulations. Being as that I hate the current president, And do not believe the presidency to be a virtuous or honorable position, I will not be being arguing on behalf of Donald Trump's reputation, But rather that he is no different and as contemptible as other recent presidents who were apparently 'fit to lead. ' I will not make any opening arguments this round to allow for my opponent to make any adjustments they feel necessary because of my stipulations. Thank you.
Is Donald Trump fit for the presidency of the United States of America

Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States. During first 100 days as president of the United States Donald Trump was already one of the most hated people in our nation. Donald Trump is not morally nor mentally fit to be our president. Trump has insulted women in the most vulgar language. When Trump was asked about this he quickly changed the subject by saying the what Bill Clinton was far worse. Bill Clinton was still a good president and he never insulted women. Bill Clinton never talked about women in a horrible manner. All Clinton did was have a relationship with another women and even so it was Monica Lewinsky who tried to seduce Clinton. Donald Trump cannot face the truth, He refuses to become a better version of himself and by doing so he puts our nation in grave danger.
Boise State football is a better program than Arizona state football

All of those titles came for the early 2000s and bragging about those is like a cowboys fan bragging about their super bowl rings from the 90s but as long as we're going to talk about the past lets bring up Boise's. Boise State has won two tostitos bowl games (an actual relevant bowl game), One coming against Oklahoma a football dynasty from the 2000s. Boise State has also won 19 conference titles to ASU's 17. ANd if we're on the topic of players in the NFL, Lets look at some prospects from BSU. Doug Martin, Jay Ajayi, Ryan Clady, Leighton Vander esc (one of the top nominees for definsive rookie of the year) matt Paradis, And Orlando Scandrick. All of the players I just named are pro bowl players.
Boise State football is a better program than Arizona state football

This season ASU experience a down year, However they still managed to upset Michagen State and rival Arizona. And you want to talk about relavant bowl games, ASU has captured 1 rose bowl win, 6 Feista bowl wins and 1 peach bowl wins. Not to mention 13 ten+ win seasons. ASU is also strong at QB, Jake Plummer and Danny White compared to former Lions 3rd Stringer Kellen More. Across the board and vs elite competion ASU is superior to BSU.
Boise State football is a better program than Arizona state football

Boise State is far and above the best team in the Mountain West and it shows. Plus you claim mountain west teams are trash when Arizona State just lost a game to Fresno state, Which Boise beat earlier in the season 24-17. Yes they did just lose to them in the Mountain West Conference title game but that was in overtime by four points. ASU lost by two scores. I would bet if BSU played ASU in a game, BSU would win.
Boise State football is a better program than Arizona state football

ASU's conference titles are more impressive because they play superior teams like USC, Stanford, Oregon, Utah, And Washington. Boise State plays programs such as Hawaii, Utah State, Air Force, San Jose State( the worst team in football the past 2 years, And Wyoming. ASU also has premier stars in the NFL, Such as the ravens Terrell Suggs, The Bengals Vontaz Burfict, And the Browns Damerious Randall.
technology is nothing but a threat for the enviroment

I accept the terms and conditions. I will show everyone that tech isn't hurting the environment. Intro: The first rule of any technology used in a business is that automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency. The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency. Bill Gates 1: USA today did a story on March 31, 2014. "Technology alone will not solve every problem, but it is part of the solution. Let's use technology as a way to amplify our voices in support of the environment. Let's turn to Facebook, Twitter and the myriad other ways to connect and strategize with likeminded individuals about how to make this world better. Let's use technology to extend the reach of our personal influence in support of the planet we love." http://www.usatoday.com... 2: Best tech helping the environment. http://www.livescience.com... 3: Technology is cleaning up the mess. http://www.pollutionissues.com... Conclusion: Whatever you want to do, if you want to be great at it, you have to love it and be able to make sacrifices for it. Maya Angelou