BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Best Super Power

I have no explanation for Pros arguments so I will jus have to make my own and refute his argument against mine...Con's Arguments-A) You cannot make your clothes invisible; thus, you will be forced to be stripped of your clothes on each mission.I am pretty sure that invisibility wouldn't be that much of a loser and not allow you to be naked to be entirely invisible.B) You cannot make your weapon and/or spy equipment invisible either. I am not entirely sure how you will hide a sniper rifle that is floating in mid-air.Again, there is definitely no chance of you only having to be naked to be fully invisible.C) When you are invisible, you are blind. See, light reflects off your eyes so that you can see, and since no light reflects off of you when you are invisible (otherwise people would see you), you will not be able to see. This makes it extremely difficult to kill any enemies or discover who you are spying on (since you will not be able to see their faces).Being invisible is like having an Octocamo or stealth. These pieces of equipment are from the real life like stealth game called Metal Gear Solid. In this game includes the Main Character Solid Snake. His mission is to use stealth and whatever he can find in his surroundings to his advantage. In the last Metal Gear game. Metal Gear Solid 4, you are equipped with a type of stealth suit called Octocamo witch, Ironically blends in with the background that you are on and makes you virtually invisible. Same goes for Stealth. Once you have it equipped in the Series, then you are absolutely invisible and can never be seen. (Unless you are fighting a boss of course)D) In present times, security systems not only comprise of cameras, but also heat detectors, motion detectors, traps, and more. Becoming invisible does not stop these defense systems from detecting and harming you; thus, it is unlikely that one will have the skill to kill or spy on someone without getting caught or killed.I do agree that there have been new technology to stop intruders, but there is also new technology to get those things out of the way. There are many different things that can disable technology like Mines or cameras. One of those things are called Chaff Grenades. What these do is, once it explodes, it emits strange gas and can shut down any kind of technology within the vicinity.The last problem occurs in your last argument only. Your power was the ability to turn invisible, not the ability to turn time backwards; therefore, your last argument is invalid.What I am saying in this argument is that IF you were at that time having the power to be invisible, then it would be easy.
Best Super Power

Contradictions.....1. Lost car keys? No problem!What if these "Car keys" were already destroyed? What if they were sent so far or hard to get that it wasn't possible to get? There is also such a possibility that you could have detected the wrong car keys or anything. You could have gotten the wrong glasses, or wrong contact lenses. Especially if there are multiple that can be found within your area because it would be much hard to find it.2. Criminals on the loose!In this argument you specifically said "anything" you wish. Last time I checked, humans were not objects.[1]3. Serve your country.This may be just ridiculous but what if what you detected was in fact NOT a mine? Many people do in fact bury alarm clocks for the future to view and use.4. Don't fail that test!Did my opponent not just say in his first post that he is arguing that "Finding anything" is his power of choice? Because I do not seem to remember him stating that memorizing was another that he added.Arguments1. Undercover is certainly no problem!Obviously considering the fact of invisibility, nobody could fin you if you were on say.... A top secret mission that you had to infiltrate someplace and maybe obtain a certain object. Since you cannot be spotted this job would be a sinch for you if you had invisibility. Hey, maybe you can stop at there snack bar on the way!2. Behind enemy lines!Because you have invisibility, the military would make great use of your talents. They can use you to go behind enemy lines while the war is going on and obtain information on there tactics or maybe just take out a few of there captains that are guarding the defenses.3. Easy with a touch of cold blood....If you had this type of ability in the date of say.... 1503 A.D Rome, Italy, and you were hired as an assassin then this would be immensely easy for someone of your talents to kill a measly person when you can never be seen. You could easily kill him and still have room for lunch. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Gun Control is Bad

I did not initially title this debate that well so let me define what I mean "gun control is bad". I mean that gun control is a flawed policy that should not fully be implemented within the United States. "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies by their intentions rather than their results"- Milton Friedman. I believe these words have never been truer, especially on a topic like gun control. On paper, gun control sounds like a good idea, but in practice, it falls flat on its face. I will explain why. First, gun control is in itself, a policy that perpetuates a logical fallacy. Unarming law-abiding citizens does not protect law-abiding citizens. 2.5 million citizens protect themselves using guns every year (hoplofobia.info). If their guns were taken away, those 2.5 million citizens would not have had the protection they needed and would have had whatever violent crime committed against them. Not only that, but when a citizen with a gun intervenes before the police, 1/8th the number of casualties occur. We have no reason to implement a policy that takes defensive measures against law-abiding citizens. (Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics, Davi Barker, July 2013). We also must consider the fact that gun control doesn't work. This is evident because in almost every place gun control has been implemented, disasters have been grave. 92% of mass shootings occur in "gun free zones" (crimeresearch.org). That alone should showcase how inefficient this policy is at keeping crime from happening. Not only that, but the U.S. government itself has "found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes" (First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing the Violence: Firearms Laws, CDC, Task Force on Community Preventive Services, October 3, 2003). Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country but is reported to be one of the most dangerous places to live in. If we examine policies in other countries we could find similar results. A 2007 British journal of criminology study and a 2008 Melbourne study conclude that the temporary gun ban that occured in Australia had no effect on the gun homicide rate. There was actually an 89% spike in gun crime from 1998/1999 to 2008/2009, all of this occurring after the gun ban. This isn't my lengthiest argument, but the points I bring up are still valid. Gun control does not have a history of actually being effective at stopping crime but it is effective at disarming innocent people. For these reasons a pro vote is the only logical outcome.
FanboyMctroll is a...

The definition of mean is, "unkind, spiteful, or unfair." (Under adjective, #2 [1]. This debate would be unfair and unwarranted if Fanboy hadn't started a debate to deny two DDOers their rights. This debate would have been spiteful if it had been created by What50 or Masterful instead of a neutral outsider who is now appointed to be judging Fanboy. This debate would have been unkind if I had denied Fanboys right to debate me on a topic about himself. Therefore I am not being mean and you have not refuted any of my points. [1] https://www.google.ca...
Term Limits for the Federal Government

I don't believe that term limits should be instituted. We do have the problem of "career" politicians, who figure out how to game the system in Washington for benefit to their constituency, along with personal benefit. This, however, should not limit members of our government who are not there for nefarious purposes. We have a system of representative government. If the majority dictates via term limits who can not represent an individual voting district, this may force a truely unqualified candidate who may not represent the interest of their voting district, but instead installed as a bandaid. Another major problem with term limits is it removes accountability from individual politicians. If a politician knows that their time in government is severely limited, they will not look to legislate for the long term. They will want to do what looks good in their 15 minutes of fame. Whether they do a good job or not, the result will be the same- they will be removed from office after a set period. If a politician is abusing his office, and using it for personal gain, they can be censured by their branch of Congress. If they are operating within legal and ethical boundaries, there is no problem. No members can accumulate individual power. They may gain influence, however, all members still only have one vote. 99 freshman senators can still override the will of one career senator.
The fetus is a baby with rights.

And I will end by saying that I am not disagreeing that it can be a horrible, ugly and gruesome thing. I never once said I agreed with it, nor did I ever attempt to give off that impression. What you're doing I believe is trying to make a last ditch effort at gaining sympathy points by laying out some grizzly details in what comes with employing those methods of abortion and while I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with you I need to say this to wrap it up; This was never a debate about the merits of abortion itself. Put simply, you asked if a fetus was a baby with rights, not if abortion was cruel. I believe I stated my case clearly and coherently. Better luck next time 'bud.
The fetus is a baby with rights.

Good point... But I might add that this is a silly time for either of us taking the time out to study anything. I could be crazy... I seriously very well might be but if I had to guess I'd think that a certain amount of education should already have been had before entering into this debate. Telling someone to go study... That is just school yard bicker because you have a lack of better argument. I've not proven nor dis-proven anything you said, you're right, and I said as much twice over prior to my current response now. But what you have good sir is one opinion. I can't disprove your opinion anymore than you can prove God exists. That is just a matter of person opinion. I asked plenty of relevant questions. If that doesn't satisfy you or those who vote then... Well nothing new, I'll just continue to lose faith in humanity more-so than I already have. Long story short; the topic you're debating is whether or not a fetus is a baby with rights and so that is what I argued relevantly. All you have done the past couple rounds is say... Nothing worthwhile basically. I bid adieu.
The fetus is a baby with rights.

You literally did not respond to anything I said, nor did you even comprehend it because if you had you would have seen that your cute little debate response was already thrown into question before you even made it by my having destroyed that point of view before it was even made. What you said is. .. Rational enough? At best. .. But it doesn't contradict nor raise any proper debate as to what I said. In fact; in kind of seems like you said to hell with what I said and this whole debate proposal was really just a guise for you to give your opinion. Opinion is not fact. Even if I were readily willing to agree with what you said, it would only be my opinion also. But you, nor I can prove any of that. Fact of the matter is you countered my argument with an opinion and ignored all prior points made. If you'd like me to entertain what you said anyhow; then okay. But it's really just a rendition of what I already said. Irregardless of what you as a fetus may or may not have wanted; you wouldn't have had the right to choose, would you? Somebody on the outside agreed or disagreed to your coming into this world and no matter what that choice may have ended up being, you wouldn't have chosen it, would you have? Therefore it's not your right, not until you are capable of reasoning to that extent with those in the outside world and communicating what you feel. Because what if you as a fetus didn't want to be brought into this world? Then somebody rains on your parade and decides you have a right to life anyway and so you're are birthed; what happened to your right to decide you didn't want to? You didn't have one because you weren't capable of making that decision and somebody else decided what was right for you, but it surely wasn't you. A fetus has no rights. Sad but true.
The fetus is a baby with rights.

I'm gonna' be honest with you, I just wanted to pick a fight with someone. I'm not even really sure I ethically or morally agree with the side I've chosen to defend, but like, y'know, whatever. I also realized I was feeling kind of lazy only after accepting this debate so I didn't even take the time to look at your profile to see what your other debates were like or how serious a contender you are but all the same. I'm better. No matter. Okay... What am I even debating again? Allow me a moment to shift my eyes upward and... Ugh, good one, Pest... F'n good one. What kind of fancy f'n situation have I gotten myself into this time I wonder? Alrighty, ahem. Since you so eloquently started off the debate with... I don't remember. Smelling what the Rock is cooking or something. Then I will just make it easy on myself and go ahead on to say... No. No it's not. A fetus is not a baby with rights because... Pfft, what do I wanna' go with... Okay, what if the fetus is in the womb of a North Korean woman? I mean, even born... Hell, grown adults don't have 'righst' in North Korea and so in that scenario, no, a fetus wouldn't have rights, would it? And besides, what kind of rights are we talking about here specifically? Like what, constitutional rights in the U.S? Are you saying the fetus should have the right to bare arms? Or do you mean religious rights? The fetus has the right to eat Jesus crackers and drink wine during communion? No siree. Drinking age is 21 in the U.S. And you're unlikely to find many countries where it drops below 16. So minus 6 months years old? Good luck finding a country THAT free. No matter which way you cut it (pun intended) and even if I chose to keep my smartas* instincts at bay, the fetus doesn't even have the human right to life, liberty or personal security and for why? Whether you or I or anyone; even the woman carrying the fetus; choose to let it live or send it back to God, no matter what any of us determine on our opinions of the grounds of fetuses having rights, the fetus itself made no decision any how. For instance; it's all fine and well when the topis is discussed this way, but just so much as people argue that a fetus is a living being already and deserves a chance to live and those who defend this side speak on behalf of it because it doesn't have a voice of it's own... Lets be honest. IF that viewpoint is to be defended, why doesn't anyone argue for the off-chance of maybe the baby fetus doesn't want to be born? And so if we bring it into this world; well..... That's where you get those emo kids who yell at their moms; "I didn't even ask to be born!" And so there you have it. The fetus is not a baby with rights, no matter how you cut it. On all accounts, you're wrong sir. How does it feel to be wrong with an argument I literally just pulled outta' my as*?
setting a limit for font-size of the debate's text

Thank you, freakazoid, for instigating this debate. Contrary to the Pro and Con positions in this debate, it appears that my opponent has chosen to argue on the Pro side of: setting a limit for font-size of a the debate's text. In other words, my opponent is arguing that there debater's text-size should be limited.A1: It is undesirable to set obnoxious font sizesA goal of any serious debater is to win a debate. Therefore, a serious debater will choose font that will most likely to help his/her case, not hinder it. The false presumption in my opponent's argument is that debaters have no incentive to not write with obnoxious font sizes. As expanded upon in a Lincoln education document, inappropriate fonts can distract from the presentation of arguments [1]. Thus, there is no need to limit debater's font sizes and they themselves will limit them appropriately.I will elaborate if necessary, but this is the crux of my argument.Reference[1] http://www.lincoln.edu.ar...
The Santa Claus Myth is Beneficial (On Balance)

May I just say though, that it is never a good idea to bet against yourself. I am certainly not all-powerful, and I will lose on occasion. On any given day, I could be upset by any given person. Go forth with confidence, that you may increase your chance of victory. And, now, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a fun read! On to the debate. .. ! . http://www.youtube.com...
The Santa Claus Myth is Beneficial (On Balance)

Accept when you can, Bsh1. Round one acceptance. This is for the final round of the WODC, and on a side note, I haven't lost a single debate but I only got lucky. In fact I'm now losing to Ajabi within that philosophical debate, so I'm pretty sure I have no chance against the mighty, all-powerful Bsh1. He holds the gong and puppet strings in this debate, I'm sure. I have to bow down to him when it comes to debating. But anyhow, I still have to do this. No reason to not hold out. I even managed to throw some punches at Raisor, even if they did miss. I hope that even if I will lose it will still be a fun good debate. But, for now, I'm laying down 100 million virtual dollars on the bet that Bsh1 will win this debate, even if I try my hardest. Nevertheless I hope we both have fun, and that Bsh1 has a good challenge even if he wins.The Santa Claus myth: the false belief that you tell your kids that Santa Claus exists, and that he knows who's naughty and nice, et cetera.Beneficial: good, has positive effects I believe BoP is shared. I have to try to show negative effects of the particular myth, while my opponent Bsh the positive effects. Remember, ROUND ONE ACCEPTANCE. Good luck, and I hope you have fun!
Slovakia is the best country in europe

The economy is not more stable then the other European economies that link I gave you proves it. And for Slovakia to be the best country in Europe it has to have the best economy not more stable then others. Secondly the thing you linked me was a tourist massacre in Pakistan not Slovakia so that means that Slovakia's military was not involved thus proving the military didn't handle the "situations" well. This proves that Slovakia isn't the best country in Europe. And use proper grammar its I not i.
Federal Reserve Transparency.

Unfortunately, I am a student so my responses may be a bit brief in the future. Hopefully not. I would like to be in proponency for some rather simple reasons. First, the American public has the right of knowing where exactly this money is going, after all, it is their money. While the Fed may be the primary entity allocate the money, they get it from American taxpayers. Any person should be justified in wanting to know where this money goes to. Transparency is what America wants and needs right now. As of now, the Fed does not need to disclose anything to the American public, and only Second, this will decrease wasteful spending. If the Federal Reserve is made more transparent, Americans can see and complain about wasteful spending. This will allow many prominent members of the public, for example, noted economists or even ordinary Americans to chime in about companies they think are underserving of Federal funds. Obviously, no entity, especially a government organization is perfect and allowing more members of the populace to analyze monetary policy will help. As of now, Americans don't even know where this money is going, so the Fed could be wasting it without our knowledge. Rebuttal C1. Total Transparency is best. My opponent believes that intelligence and military spending should not be avaliable, but it already is. On the link, you can clearly see that intellegence funding and other mediums are totally disclosed so enacting today's piece of legislation won't affect our national security. This information is readily avaliable while allocations to financial institutions are not. Myopponent attempts to differentiate between military, economic, and social, but what harm is there in telling Americans where exactly their money is? C2: Because AIG and other companies are predominatntly government own, the United States Congress has legality in passing this piece of legislation. In addition, this propsal would not affect internal spending, say, if coca-cola intended to spend 100 million investingating some new secret ingredient, but only the money the Fed gives to these companies. If my opponent is so convinced of the rights of these companies, what about the rights of Americans, to know where this money is going? C3: I have now put in a few contentions about why exactly the Pro would be a good choice and how it would affect America. While i agree with my opponent that this proposal would probably fail in a notoriously partisan Congress, I am proposing the idea itself, not in the chances it has to be passed. I would prefer not to argue semantics, but my opponent is technically correct, change the "shall" to should. Thank you. I look forward to hearing a response. . http://www.defencetalk.com...
Federal Reserve Transparency.

I normally am highly favorable of government transparency. However, I consider the position on this proposed by my opponent to be unnecessarily extreme and potentially harmful. I would like to remind my opponent that because he is arguing in favor of the resolution it is his responsibility to begin, but he had provided enough information to allow a preliminary response. C1: My opponent proposes that, "Congress shall enact legislation requiring that the Federal Reserve Board shall, as a matter of law, fully disclose all recipients of federal monies and the exact amount of those monies. .. " I do not believe this is a valid idea as some government spending must be kept secret for reasons of security. My opponent's proposal makes no except with regards to where the money is being spent. I do not believe that information military and intelligence spending should be available to the public. Economic and social spending is another matter entirely, but this proposal specifically regards all spending. C2: The necessity of information about spending being released from bailed-out entities, AIG being the example given, would seem to violate the right of said entities to keep their spending a secret. A government bailout should not force a company to forfeit the right to spend its money without the competition being able to know what it is investing in. C3: My opponent has not provided any reasons why his propositions would he favorable. He has not even submitted that it would be favorable, and he has not proposed that Congress should pass this legislation. Literary speaking he has said that Congress 'shall' enact legislation, which implies that it is a defiant future event. However, I find it highly unlikely that it will happen. I have assumed for the sake of argument that my opponent meant to say that Federal Reserve transparency would be favorable, but this technical mistake should be noted. Conclusion: I hope my opponent will clarify his argument and provide support of it in the following round. As it stands his wording was nonsensical if taken literary and he has offered nothing to support the Pro point of view. I have disputed his resolution due to the fact that it is unnecessarily absolute and takes the idea much too far. At this point I don't know what sources would be useful as my opponent has offered little to work with.